The URL can be used to link to this page

DSAC Agenda 05/06/2026For more information͕ please contact ,eather CartwriŐhtͲzilmaǌ at ;23ϵͿ 252Ͳϴ3ϴϵ or at ,eather.zilmaǌΛcollier.Őov Development Services Advisory Committee AŐenda WednesdaǇ͕ DaǇ 06͕ 2026 3͗00 pm 2ϴ00 E. ,orseshoe Dr.͕ Eaples͕ FL 3ϰ10ϰ 'rowth DanaŐement CommunitǇ Development͕ Conference Zooms 60ϵͬ610 NOTICE: Persons wishinŐ to speaŬ on anǇ AŐenda item will receive up to three ;3Ϳ minutes unless the Chairman adũusts the time. SpeaŬers are reƋuired to fill out a ͞SpeaŬer ZeŐistration Form͕͟ list the topic theǇ wish to address͕ and hand it to the Staff memďer ďefore the meetinŐ ďeŐins. Please wait to ďe recoŐniǌed ďǇ the Chairman and speaŬ into a microphone. State Ǉour name and affiliation ďefore commentinŐ. DurinŐ the discussion͕ Committee Demďers maǇ direct Ƌuestions to the speaŬer. Please silence cell phones and diŐital devices. dhere maǇ not ďe a ďreaŬ in this meetinŐ. Please leave the room to conduct anǇ personal ďusiness. All parties participatinŐ in the puďlic meetinŐ are to oďserve Zoďerts Zules of Krder and wait to ďe recoŐniǌed ďǇ the Chairman. Please speaŬ one at a time and into the microphone so the ,earinŐ Zeporter can record all statements ďeinŐ made. 1.Call to order – Chairman 2.Approval of AŐenda 3.Approval of Dinutes͗ a.DSACͲLDZ͗ 3.17.2026 ;PaŐe͗ 0ϰͿ ď. DSAC͗ 0ϰ.01.2026 ;PaŐe͗ 07Ϳ ϰ.Puďlic SpeaŬers 1 For more information͕ please contact ,eather CartwriŐhtͲzilmaǌ at ;23ϵͿ 252Ͳϴ3ϴϵ or at ,eather.zilmaǌΛcollier.Őov 5.Staff Announcementsͬhpdates a.oninŐ Division – ΀Mike Bosi΁ ď.CommunitǇ PlanninŐ Θ ZesiliencǇ Division – ΀Christopher Mason΁ c.,ousinŐ PolicǇ Θ conomic Development Division – ΀Cormac Giblin΁ d.Development Zeview Division – ΀Jaime Cook΁ e.Kperations Θ ZeŐulatorǇ DŐmt. Division – ΀Evelyn Trimino΁ f.uildinŐ Zeview Θ PermittinŐ Division – ΀Building Division΁ Ő.Collier CountǇ Fire Zeview – ΀Michael Cruz, Captain΁ h.Eorth Collier Fire Zeview – ΀Chief Sean Lintz or designee΁ i.Code nforcement Division – ΀Thomas Iandimarino΁ ũ.Puďlic htilities Department – ΀Matt McLean or designee΁ Ŭ.dransportation DanaŐement Services dransportation nŐineerinŐ Division – ΀Jay Ahmad or designee΁ 6.Eew usiness a.PL20250012ϰϰ3 – 'olf Course rrant all Containment arriers ;Yuail CreeŬ CountrǇ CluďͿ – LDCA ď.PL20250013ϴϴ1 – 'olf Course rrant all Containment arriers ;Accarrino and CommersͿ – LDCA c.PL2026000263ϴ – Zecreational sehicle ParŬinŐ ;Collier CountǇ Code of Laws and KrdinancesͿ – LDCA d.PL20260003715 – Facilities with Fuel Pumps Waiver of Separation – LDCA 7.Kld usiness ϴ.Committee Demďer Comments ϵ.Adũourn FUTURE MEETING DATES: :une 03͕ 2026 – 3͗00 PD :ulǇ 01͕ 2026 – 3͗00 PD ;Eo DeetinŐͿ AuŐust 05͕ 2026 – 3͗00 PD 2 Page 1 of 4 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING Naples, Florida March 17, 2026 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee (DSAC), Land Development Review Subcommittee (LDR), and Collier County, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:00 PM in REGULAR SESSION at the Growth Management Community Development Department Room 609/610 2800 N. Horseshoe DR. Naples, Florida with the following members present: Chairman: Clay Brooker Blair Foley Robert Mulhere - (Present only 4c. PL2026000247 Form 8B, Signed and Returned for Record) Mark McLean Jeffrey Curl The following County Staff were in attendance: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Division Director, GMCD Jaime Cook, Director, Development Review, GMCD Eric Johnson, LDC Planning Manager, GMCD Alexander Showalter, Planner III, GMCD Heather Cartwright-Yilmaz, Management Analyst/Liaison, GMCD 3 Page 2 of 4 Any person who decides to appeal a decision of This Board you will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based, Neither Collier County nor This Board shall be responsible for providing this record. 1.CALL TO ORDER – Chairman Chairman- Clay Brooker Development Service Advisory Committee – Land Development Review Subcommittee, Tuesday, March 17, 2026. 2.APPROVAL OF AGENDA Motion to approve-Jeff Curl Motion seconded- Blair Foley Motion passed unanimously 3.OLD BUSINESS None 4.NEW BUSINESS a.PL20250012443 – Golf Course Errant Ball Containment Barriers (Quail Creek Country Club) Alex Showalter, Planner III The applicant presented a proposed amendment to the Land Development Code establishing standards for golf course containment barriers. Discussion included barrier height, setbacks, landscaping, permitting requirements, and safety considerations. Staff explained the current 35-foot height limitation and the rationale for requiring conditional use approval for structures exceeding that height. Applicant to provide new information by April 7th. No motion was recorded – Item Continued to April 21st b. PL20250013881 – Golf Course Errant Ball Containment Barriers (Accarrino and Commers) Alex Showalter, Planner III Residents and representatives presented opposition to taller containment barriers, citing visual impacts, property value concerns, and lack of prior permitting. Alternative approaches were discussed, including lower barrier heights and additional safety measures. Applicant to provide new information by April 7th. No motion was recorded – Item Continued to April 21st c. PL20260002471 – Temporary Events on Collier County Property This item was presented and discussed. Motion to Approve- Clay Brooker Motion Seconded- Robert Mulhere Motion passed unanimously 4 Page 3 of 4 5.PUBLIC SPEAKERS •Jeremie Chastain, Quail Creek Country Club- PL20250001380 •Joseph Groch, Accarrino and Commers- PL20250013881 •Chad Commers, Accarrino and Commers- PL20250013881 •Frank Accarrino, Accarrino and Commers- PL20250013881 •Letitia Accarrino, Accarrino and Commers- PL20250013881 •Chris Evans, Quail Creek Country Club- PL20250001380 •Zack Lombardo, Quail Creek Country Club- PL20250001380 6.REMINDERS OF UPCOMING DSAC-LDR SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING DATES DISCUSSION: a.April 21, 2026 b. July 21, 2026 c.October 20, 2026 7.MEETING ADJOURNED There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the chairman at 5:05 p.m. 5 Page 4 of 4 COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE _______________________________________ Clay Brooker, Chairman These minutes were approved by the Committee/Chairman on __________________, (check one) as submitted _______ or as amended ______. 6 1 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING Naples, Florida April 1st, 2026 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee and Collier County, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:00 PM in REGULAR SESSION at the Collier County Growth Management Community Department Building, Conference Room #609/610, 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr., Naples, Florida, 34102 with the following members present: Chairman: William J. Varian Vice Chairman: Blair Foley James Boughton Clay Brooker - EXCUSED Jeffrey Curl Laura Spurgeon DeJohn John English Marco Espinar - EXCUSED Norm Gentry Nicholas Kouloheras Mark McLean Chris Mitchell Robert Mulhere Gary Hains – AHAC (Non-voting) - EXCUSED Jeremy Stark Mario Valle ALSO PRESENT: James French, Department Head, GMCD Mike Bosi, Director – Zoning, GMCD Christopher Mason, Director – Community Planning & Resiliency, GMCD Cormac Giblin, Director – Housing Policy & Economic Development, GMCD Jaime Cook, Director – Development Review, GMCD Evelyn Trimino, Director – Operations Support-Operations & Regulatory Management, GMCD John McCormick, Director – Building Review & Permitting Division, GMCD Captain Bryan Horbel, North Collier Fire Review Captain Michael Cruz, Collier County Fire Review – EXCUSED Thomas Iandimarino, Director – Code Enforcement, GMCD Claudia Carmenate, Project Manager I – Public Utilities Engineering & Project Management, PUD Matt Thomas P.E., Manager – Transportation Planning, Transportation Engineering Division Eric Johnson, Manager – Planning, GMCD Heather Cartwright-Yilmaz, Management Analyst / Staff Liaison, GMCD 7 2 Any person who decides to appeal a decision of This Board you will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based, neither Collier County nor This Board shall be responsible for providing this record. 1.CALL TO ORDER– Chairman William Varian Development Service Advisory Committee, Wednesday, April 1st, 2026, was called to order at 3:00 PM. 2.APPROVAL OF AGENDA Motion to approve- Jeff Curl Motion Seconded- Mark McLean Motion passed unanimously 3.APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.DSAC- 02.04.2026 Motion to approve- Mario Valle Motion Seconded- Mark McLean Motion passed unanimously b.DSAC- 03.04.2026 Motion to approve- Jeff Curl Motion seconded- Blair Foley Motion passed unanimously 4.PUBLIC SPEAKERS None 5.STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS a. Zoning Division – [Mike Bosi, Director] •17 Petitions going before the board over the next 4 meetings. b.Community Planning & Resiliency Division – [Christopher Mason, Director] •Flood plain management Plan review started. •Meetings will be public c.Housing Policy & Economic Development – [Cormac Giblin, Director] •Several changes to Live Local approved by State Legislature on March 16th, 2026 •Any property owned by the County or School District is eligible for the live local zoning exemption. •Outlawed setbacks that are a function of height. •Approved through House Bill 1389 8 3 d. Development Review Division – [Jaime Cook, Director] •Development Review/Building review staff have been meeting with GNF 1-2 times per month. They feel there are issues with site plans. We have reviewed 35 files that they flagged and found a couple minor issues that we could fix. •Greater Naples Fire has been looking into taking back over plan review. Mario Valle- It was set at the last meeting for them to bring the reviews back in-house. Fire commission has asked for 120 days set aside to prepare. What have they asked for in the meantime. Jaime Cook- They have asked for financial information, salary of the reviewers, cost of city view licenses, square footage of rent that each division pays back. Permitting financial figures of how much money GMD takes in for the fire plan review. We have provided everything. Chris Mitchell- As a member of this board I don’t understand why we want to change it when we are talking about a sample size of issues in 12,000 applications. Bill Varian- Could we ask Greater Naples Fire to do a presentation here for us? Jamie French- I have asked Deputy County Manager Ed Finn to be with us today. I had a lunch meeting with Chief Shawn Hansen on February 28th, 2025, outside of the office at First Watch. At the end of the meeting, I had no understanding that there was a problem with an individual or with the Fire Plan review. Communication gaps were something we talked about, and I agreed to address. I presented at their meeting on March 12,2025 and came back and presented again on June 25th, 2025. When Chief Hansen was asked if she had any communication with me directly, Chief Hansen said outside of hallway communication there has been none. We provide a service for them. At any time, they can cancel that service. We absorb all of the administrative costs, but we keep the fire plan review fee, they get the inspection fee. There have been comments at the board meeting that we are withholding money from them. We have engaged with Raftelis to look at the business models to see what their cost to operate would be and what the benefit to our bottom line is. A statement was also made that we are withholding information from them. They have access to City View and can pull any reports they want. They can also pull a public records request for Salary information if needed. As a board you can vote to keep this as is with no changes. Be informed and be involved because this may and likely will affect your business. Bill Varian- Is there something as a board that we should be asking for? Jamie French- I am bringing it to your attention because the cost of the study is coming out of the fees you paid. It will cost 75-80K to fight this. We have the right to have a 3rd party independent review done to protect ourselves and our employees. Bill Varian- What is the time frame on this Mario Valle- They took a vote to postpone action for 120 days. Jamie French- At the last meeting this employee was provided a vote of no confidence. We have asked for it in writing, and we have not received it. It is an adverse action to a licensed individual and it is reckless. The Chief has asked for a meeting, and it will be held here in this office, and all meetings have minutes taken that are public records. Blair Foley- As a board do we want to take action on this. We can make a statement on our position. 9 4 Mario Valle- It is very difficult to get CO on a building and to have that pulled in the end is difficult to stomach. A non-profit group to have to go through this and why wasn’t anything said at the rough. Norm Gentry- We have been down this road before with East Naples Fire District and Golden Gate. It caused a lot of issues. Are we as a board going to vote to make a statement on our opinion. Blair Foley- Do we want to make a motion or do we need to submit a letter with our position on this. Robert Mulhere- We could write a letter saying that we are collectively as a board in favor of facilitating, fully compliant review as efficiently as possible. Mario Valle- That the status quo of what we are doing is working but there might be a need for some interpretative understanding between the agencies but the status quo of how we are managing the process of the fire reviews to the boards liking. So, who would that go to William Varian- It would be a motion of this board to Jamie French directly. Mario Valle- Made a Motion- “We move that we maintain the current working contract with the fire district to keep the reviews inhouse and if there needs to be an understanding of the interpretation to have that be a conversation point, but there is not a need to restructure the process.” Jeff Curl- I agree with Bob, a letter would help as well. Blair Foley- I will second your motion Mario. I will also suggest using the same language in a letter from this committee. Norm Gentry- Suggested an amendment to the motion to state, “We are happy with the current way the system is operating. It provides consistency. If there any improvement needed in our view, it should be consistency between plan review and inspections” Mario Valle- Accepts amendment to the motion Blair Foley- seconds Motion passed unanimously e.Operations Support & Regulatory Management Division – [Evelyn Trimino, Director] •Pay study will be ready to present to DSAC within 60-90 days •153 permits in routing; Working on 3/31 •Intake- 278 permits in routing. Working on 3/30 •952 Customers into main building. 74 Immokalee, 61 Heritage Bay, 80 Everglades City •Cityview updates- Right of way bond changes available as of today. Impact fees will be ready in Cityview by May 1st f. Building Review and Permitting Division- [John McCormick, Director] •March- almost 5000 permits •We are working on 534 residential, 450 Structural •We try to average 20 days for plan review and 10 days for final type. Doug Esposito •Bill 399 was signed last week- Requires additional threshold inspections. 10 5 •Bill 803 pending signature by the Governor. Private provider rules are changing. If they use a private provider for inspections, we have to reduce our fee by 50%. If they use a private provider for inspections and plan reviews, we have to reduce our fee by 75% •Anticipated changes to our fee schedules •We are not allowed to visit sites for inspections that have private providers. They have zero oversight. •Private providers have 5 days for review and automatically go to the front of the line for review. Bill Varian- Shared frustration over communication breakdown when interpretations change. Asked for communication to avoid confusion and delays in the field. Jamie French- Raftelis will be reviewing the fee schedule to make adjustments to the approved fees to make up for the changes to private provider inspection rules. Mark McLean- Do we have a counterbalance that says a local builder using the local municipality gets front of the line privileges. Is there an ordinance that supersedes building codes. Jamie French- State preempts local. This is a preemption of home rule authority. g.Collier County Fire Review – [Michael Cruz, Captain] •Excused- No updates h.North Collier Fire Review – [Bryan Horbel- Captain] •March- 703 permits with a 3-4-day turnaround. •60 Planning permits with 2-day turnaround. •1240 New Construction inspections. •Occupancy license/Business license. It has changed to Change of Use to document if there has been a change of use. We do an occupant license inspection to make sure they are ready for business. •Next day on inspections i.Code Enforcement Division – [Thomas Iandimarino, Director] •Animal cruelty fines increased per offense to 1st- $2500, 2nd $5000, 3rd $7500.00 Jeff Curl- Are those fines subject to the board for appeal? Thomas Iandimarino- We are going to do a manual ordinance to add an M for a mandatory court appearance based on the level of the offense. j. Public Utilities Department – [Claudia Carmenate, Project Manager I] •No updates k.Transportation Management Services- [Matt Thomas, P.E. Manager] •Vanderbilt extension phase II – Design complete; Construction start date anticipated late 2026 for 18 months •VBR phase I – 92% completed; Anticipated completion early Summer 2026 •VBR/Logan Intersection – 11% completed; Anticipated completion February 2027 11 6 •Stan Gober Bridge rehab – 3% completed; Notice to proceed issued 3/9/2026; Anticipated 395 days to complete by Spring 2027 6.NEW BUSINESS a. PL20260002471 Temporary Events – LDCA (3-19-2026) Eric Johnson, LDC Planning Manager •Land Development Code Amendment- Section 05.0405 Temporary events. •Current system doesn’t make sure event area is safe. •$200.00 application fee with $150.00 Fire review fee. •Will require events held on Collier County property that are opened to the public to have a temporary use permit. Motion to approve- Jeff Curl Motion seconded- Mark McLean Motion passed unanimously 7.OLD BUSINESS None 8.COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Mark McLean- We would like to invite any board members who want to participate to attend the April 21st Subcommittee meeting. We need an additional voting member. 9.ADJOURN Future Meeting dates May 6th,2026 3:00 PM June 3rd,2026 3:00 PM July 1st,2026 3:00 PM – No Meeting There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned at 5:00PM. 12 7 COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE _________________________________________ William Varian, Chairman These minutes were approved by the Committee/Chairman on ___________________, (check one) as submitted _______ or as amended _______. 13 6. New Business a.PL20250012443 – Golf Course Errant Ball Containment Barriers (Quail Creek Country Club) – LDCA 14 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 15 Page 1 of 6 Request Statement (2-26-2026) ERRANT BALL CONTAINMENT FENCE LDCA REQUEST STATEMENT Introduction The Quail Creek Country Club is located approximately one mile north of Immokalee Road and just under half a mile east of I-75 North and comprises of one parcel approximately 183.18 acres in size. The property is developed with the Quail Creek Club, which comprises of a clubhouse, court sport facilities, and a 36-hole golf course. The land use designation is currently Urban – Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict. The property is zoned Golf Course and Recreational Use District (GC), which allows for golf courses and recreational uses. The surrounding lands are designated Urban – Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict. The zoning and existing land uses on the surrounding lands is as follows. •North: Zoned GC, developed with a golf course and recreational uses; zoned RSF-2, developed with single-family dwellings. •South: Zoned RSF-2, developed with single-family dwellings. •East: Zoned RSF-2, developed with single-family dwellings. •West: Zoned RSF-2, developed with single-family dwellings. Request This is a request to amend LDC Section 2.03.09.A.1.c., Open Space Zooning Districts - Golf Course and Recreational Use District “GC” – Conditional uses; and to add Section 5.05.17., Errant Golf Ball Containment Barriers in the Golf Course (GC) Zoning District, to the LDC as follows (text underlined are additions): 2.03.09 - Open Space Zoning Districts A.Golf Course and Recreational Use District "GC". The purpose and intent of "GC" district is to provide lands for golf courses, recreational uses, and normal accessory uses, including certain uses of a commercial nature. Recreational uses should be compatible in scale and manner with residential land uses. The GC district shall be in accordance with the urban mixed use district and the agricultural/rural mixed use district of the future land use element of the Collier County GMP. All uses shall be subject to design standards established in LDC section 5.05.15 H, and other applicable LDC standards. 1.The following subsections identify the uses that are permissible by right and the uses that are allowable as accessory or conditional uses in the GC district. a.Permitted uses. 1.Golf courses. 2.Hiking trails, walkways, multi-use paths and observation decks. Attachment 1: Submittal 4 - Request Statement (02-26-2026) 16 Page 2 of 6 Request Statement (2-26-2026) 3.Passive recreation areas. 4.Disc golf. b.Accessory uses. 1.Uses and structures that are accessory and incidental to uses permitted as of right in the GC district. 2.Recreational facilities that serve as an integral part of a golf course use, including but not limited to clubhouse, community center building, practice driving range, shuffleboard courts, swimming pools and tennis facilities, snack shops and restrooms. 3.Pro shops with equipment sales, no greater than 1,000 square feet, associated with a golf course. 4.Restaurants associated with a golf course with a seating capacity of 150 seats or less, provided that the hours of operation are no later than 10:00 p.m. However, the seating capacity shall be limited to 200 seats, and the hours of operation may be extended to 12:00 a.m., within the Golden Gate City Economic Development Zone. 5.A maximum of two residential dwellings units for use by golf course employees in conjunction with the operation of the golf course. 6.Maintenance buildings. 7.Errant golf ball containment barriers that meet the design standards established in LDC Section 5.03.08. c.Conditional uses. The following uses are permissible as conditional uses in the GC district, subject to the standards and provisions established in LDC section 10.08.00. 1.Commercial establishments oriented to the golf course including gift shops; pro shops with equipment sales in excess of 1,000 square feet; restaurants with seating capacity of greater than 150 seats outside the Golden Gate City Economic Development Zone; cocktail lounges, and similar uses, primarily intended to serve patrons of the golf course. 2.Cemeteries and memorial gardens. 17 Page 3 of 6 Request Statement (2-26-2026) 3.Equestrian facilities, including any trails, no closer than 500 feet to residential uses. 4.Museums. 5.Water related activities, including non-motorized boating, boat ramps, docks, and fishing piers. 6.Courts, including bocce ball, basketball, handball, pickle ball, tennis, and racquetball. 7.Neighborhood fitness and community centers. 8.Parks and playgrounds. 9.Pools, indoor or outdoor. 10.Botanical gardens. 11.Errant golf ball containment barriers that cannot meet the design standards established in LDC Section 5.03.08. 12.Any other recreational use which is compatible in nature with the foregoing uses as determined by the Hearing Examiner or Board of Zoning Appeals, as applicable. 5.03.08. Errant Golf Ball Containment Barriers in the Golf Course (GC) Zoning District A.Purpose and intent. The purpose and intent of this section is to ensure that errant golf ball containment barriers do not adversely impact land uses adjacent to golf courses and/or driving ranges by establishing height, locational, and landscaping standards. Errant golf ball containment barriers (more commonly known as golf netting or barriers) consist of a netting barrier supported by upright poles and designed to contain errant golf balls to protect players, spectators, neighboring properties, and public and private right-of- way from the risks of stray golf balls; and are a component of golf courses and/or practice driving ranges. B.Applicability. These regulations are applicable to errant golf ball containment barriers within the Golf Course and Recreational Use Zoning District “GC”. C.Design and development standards. 1.Height, Location, and Design Standards. 18 Page 4 of 6 Request Statement (2-26-2026) a.Maximum Height: seventy (70) feet. b.Setbacks. Except as otherwise provided in this section, errant golf ball containment barriers shall be setback twenty (20) feet from any property line under separate ownership. c.Required Setback Adjacent to property improved with one or more residential dwelling units: One (1) foot for each foot in height. d.Required setback adjacent to public right-of-way: One (1) foot for each foot in height. e.Required Upright Pole Color: Matte Black f.Required Netting Color: Black 2.Landscaping requirements when adjacent to property improved with one or more residential dwelling units. a.A cluster of trees consisting of a minimum of three (3) canopy trees or palms at the approximate location of each upright pole shall be required. Required tree plantings shall be planted a minimum of ten (10) feet and a maximum of fifteen (15) feet from the errant ball containment barrier upright poles; and shall be minimum of twelve (12) feet in height at time of planting and a minimum height of twenty (20) feet at maturity. There are no limitations on the number of palms that can be used. b.Where adjacent property within three hundred (300) feet is improved with one or more residential dwelling units, the required tree plantings shall be located between the errant golf ball containment barrier upright pole, and the adjacent property. c.Existing, native vegetation that is a minimum height of twelve (12) feet can be used to meet these screening requirements. If native vegetation is present but there are not enough trees at a minimum height of twelve (12) feet, supplemental landscaping must be used to meet the screening requirements. D.Errant golf ball containment barriers shall require both a Site Development Plan and building permit review. E.Errant golf ball containment barriers that cannot meet the design standards established above shall be required to obtain a Conditional Use approval, subject to the standards and provisions established in LDC section 10.08.00. 19 Page 5 of 6 Request Statement (2-26-2026) Justification The Quail Creek Country Club and golf course have been in existence at this location since approximately 1981. There have been multiple expansions throughout the year, including a rebuild of the golf course in 1993. The driving range is located south of the clubhouse, next to hole 10 of the golf course. Driving ranges are a common accessory use to golf courses. There have been several instances of injury to patrons playing through hole 10 caused by errant golf balls from the driving range. In response to a significant safety risk to golfers on the course and to protect the safety and welfare of the public utilizing the golf course, an errant ball containment fence was installed in April 2024 along the western perimeter of the driving range, to prevent errant and long shots from reaching Hole 10. To date, six individuals have been struck on Hole 10 by range ball, including one incident resulting in major injury. In the GC District a driving range is an accessory use. 2.03.09.A.1.b.2., LDC (“Recreational facilities that serve as an integral part of a golf course use, including but not limited to clubhouse, community center building, practice driving range, shuffleboard courts, swimming pools and tennis facilities, snack shops and restrooms.”) (Emphasis added). Dimensional standards for accessory uses are included both in section 2.03.09.A.1.b., and section 4.02.02, LDC.1 Additional dimensional standards for fences are contained in section 5.03.02, LDC. None of the above sections contain a height limit for accessory uses in the GC District. This is distinct from accessory uses for other districts which do have height limits. Specifically, in the GC District, in section 2.03.09.A.1.b., LDC, there are dimensional standards regarding pro-shop sizes, § 2.03.09.A.1.b.3., LDC, but none regarding practice driving ranges. In Section 4.02.02, LDC, the GC District dimensional standards are “[RESERVED]”. This section, prior to ordinance 2010-23, contained dimensional standards that were moved elsewhere and did not include a height limit. Finally, in section 5.03.02, LDC, which includes additional dimensional standards for fences, does not include any height limit applicable in the GC District. There are fence height limits in certain listed zoning districts other than the GC District; for example, Residential (RSF, RMF, RT, VR, MH) and TTRVC zoning districts and certain commercial and industrial districts have fence height limits listed in section 5.03.02, LDC. Notably absent from the list of districts with a fence height limit is the GC District. Section 5.03.02, titled “Fences and Walls, Excluding Sound Walls”, however, does not contain any height limit for fences in the GC District. Validation that there is not a height limit for fences in the GC District is in the form of the 2 golf courses, Imperial and Hibiscus, that have driving range containment fences taller than 35 feet. Conclusion The requested amendment is consistent with applicable Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Growth Management Plan; will establish height limitations for errant ball containment fences in 1 Dimensional standards for principal uses in the GC District dictate a height limit of 35 feet, but this is not applicable to accessory uses. § 4.02.01.A., Table 2. 20 Page 6 of 6 Request Statement (2-26-2026) the GC district; and establish setback and landscaping standards to ensure compatibility with the surrounding area. The proposed standards will allow golf courses to safeguard the safety of guests and adjacent properties through the installation of these containment fences, while giving Collier County the means to review and ensure compatibility with adjacent properties. 21 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 22 MEMORANDUM To: Quail Creek Country Club From: Cameron Fady, PGA Director of Golf & Kyle Horvath, PGA Head Golf Professional RE: Golf Ball Flight and Driving Range Golf Ball Containment Net This memorandum has been prepared in response to the engineer’s report that was presented at the March 17, 2026, Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee – Land Development Review Subcommittee as it pertains to golf ball flight and safety of a 35-foot golf ball containment net. I.Ball Flight and Apex The average golfer hitting a driver achieves an apex height between approximately eighty (80) and one-hundred ten (110) feet, with more skilled players typically reaching or exceeding 100 feet. This is nearly three times the height of a 35-foot net. As the driver is the lowest lofted club in a golfer’s bag, all other clubs generally produce even higher apex trajectories. This is crucial as members expect to be able to practice all golf clubs in their bag. Accordingly, a 35-foot net is insufficient to reliably contain golf balls struck under normal playing conditions. II.Easterly Winds The predominate wind patterns from December through April originate from the east and northeast. These conditions increase the likelihood that golf balls hit on the range will be carried laterally toward Creek Hole #10, further exacerbating containment concerns. III.Common Ball Flight Deviations Common player errors such as mishits (shanks), slices (for right-handed golfers), and improper aim are all factors that influence a golf ball to travel toward Creek Hole #10. IV.Limited Flight Golf Balls While limited flight golf balls may reduce overall distance to approximately 75% to 90% of standard balls, they do not materially mitigate lateral dispersion. As a result, sideways ball flight remains unaddressed which is the core of the issue. Further, the Attachment 2: Gold Response Memo v3 23 implementation of limited flight golf balls would degrade the practice experience for players and lower the club’s member satisfaction and retention rates. V.Tee Alignment Changing the tee alignment still does not change the miss pattern, it would only create congestion and reduce our capacity. This solution suggests you can just “move the problem” which is not the case. VI.Conclusion The proposed mitigation measures compromise the integrity and functionality of a core club amenity while failing to fully address the underlying safety risks. As such, they do not represent a practical or effective solution to the issue at hand. For additional data reference, please see Exhibit A and Exhibit B attached hereto based upon data from Trackman launch monitors. 24 Exhibit “A” 25 Golf Ball Peak Height vs Proposed Net Height (Source-Backed) This chart is based on data from TrackMan launch monitor metrics. TrackMan defines 'Apex (Height)' as the maximum height of ball trajectory. Example: A 6-iron has an optimal peak height of approximately 34 yards (~102 feet). Source: TrackMan Golf – Ball Flight Parameters (Height/Apex) Implication: A 35-foot net does not sufficiently mitigate ball flight risk, as even mid-irons exceed this height by nearly 3x, and drivers exceed it further. 26 Exhibit “B” 27 From: Kyle Horvath <khorvath@quailcreekcc.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2026 4:01 PM To: Chris Evans <cevans@quailcreekcc.com>; Zach Lombardo <zlombardo@wpl-legal.com>; Logan Wardlow <lwardlow@wpl-legal.com>; jchastain@bowman.com <jchastain@bowman.com> Cc: Cameron Fady <cfady@quailcreekcc.com> Subject: RE: Upcoming Public Hearing for LDC Amendments 20 Handicap Simulation Report . 3layer 3roIile Golfer Type: 20 Handicap Miss Pattern: Slice/push (right bias toward 10th hole) Consistency: Low–moderate Strike Pattern: Off-center (toe/heel variability) 2. TrackMan-Style Shot Data Representative Shot Averages Club Carry (yds) Launch (°) Spin (rpm) Apex (ft) Offline (yds) 7-Iron 135 16° 6500 75 ft 10–25 R 6-Iron 150 17° 6000 100–105 ft 15–35 R 5-Iron 160 18° 5500 105–115 ft 20–40 R Driver 210 12° 2800 110–130 ft 25–60 R 3. Trajectory vs Net Vertical Comparison 130ft | Driver Peak 120ft | ● 110ft | ● 100ft | ●← 6-Iron Peak (TrackMan example ≈ 102 ft) 90ft | ● 80ft | ● 70ft | ● 60ft | 50ft | 40ft | https://outlook.office.com/mail/AAMkADNkMDJjZjhhLWUyMTktNDhkOC1iYTNlLWI4ZWMyZjA5ZjMxZAAuAAAAAACgWJvwFalvQaXEmzoRlCOTAQA… 35ft |--------------------------- ←Proposed Net Height 30ft | Even a mid-iron exceeds the proposed net height by nearly 3x. 4. Shot Dispersion (TrackMan Ellipse Simulation) Top View (Right Miss Bias) TARGET LINE | | ● | ● | ● | ● |● | ● ● | ● ● | ● ● | ● ● | _______________________________→ 4/7/26, 4:56 PM 28 RIGHT MISS (10th hole) What this shows: Shots are not centered Majority leak right (toward danger area) Some misses are extreme 5.GC Quad Impact Pattern Face Strike Pattern (Typical 20 Handicap) TOE CENTER HEEL ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Interpretation: Off-center hits = gear effect Creates: Slice spin Unpredictable launch Higher/lower peak height variance 6.Variability = The Real Risk Apex Height Range (NOT average) Club Low Shot High Shot 6-Iron 80 ft 115 ft Driver 95 ft 135+ ft Safety is based on the highest possible shot, not the average. 7. Why the Alternatives Fail 35 ft Net Only stops very low shots Majority of balls clear it easily Limited Flight Balls Reduce distance, NOT height proportionally Still produce 80–100+ ft apex Iron-Only Rule 6-iron still ≈ 100 ft Miss pattern still right Moving Players Does NOT eliminate: 4/7/26, 4:56 PM https://outlook.office.com/mail/AAMkADNkMDJjZjhhLWUyMTktNDhkOC1iYTNlLWI4ZWMyZjA5ZjMxZAAuAAAAAACgWJvwFalvQaXEmzoRlCOTAQA… Slice pattern High apex shots 29 Launch monitor data shows that a typical 20-handicap golfer produces shots with peak heights exceeding 100 feet and significant right-side dispersion. A 35-foot net does not meaningfully mitigate that risk, particularly when considering worst-case shots rather than averages. Driver Clubhead Speed by Age (Male Golfers) Age Range Avg Speed (mph)Typical Range 18–29 100–110 95–115+ 30–39 98–108 93–112 40–49 95–105 90–108 50–59 90–100 85–103 60–69 80–90 75–95 70+70–85 65–90 Quail Creek Member Performance Profile (Data-Backed) Membership Breakdown Applied to Performance Segment % of Membership Avg Age Est. Speed (mph)Avg Carry (yds) Under 50 16%~45 95–115 250–300 50–59 14%~55 90–100 210–240 60–80 59%~65 80–90 190–220 80+10%~82 70–80 160–190 Family/Younger Users 39% overlap <26 95–110+230–300+ Thank you & have a great day, 4/7/26, 4:56 PM https://outlook.office.com/mail/AAMkADNkMDJjZjhhLWUyMTktNDhkOC1iYTNlLWI4ZWMyZjA5ZjMxZAAuAAAAAACgWJvwFalvQaXEmzoRlCOTAQA… 30 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 31 Elevation of Containment Fencing Sight Line Section RESIDENTIAL LOT 140' ---------------+--- ~ 70 FT POLE DRIVING RANGE Errant Ball Containment Fence Exhibit Bowman 2026/04/23 950 Encore Way Naples, Florida 34110 Office: (239) 254-2000 bowman.com Attachment 3: Generic-Containment Fence Exhibit-2026-04-23 (SM) 32 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 33 Attachment 4: 340830-01-001Containment Fence Exhibit-2026-04-23 (SM) 34 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 35 Attachment 5: 340830-01-001-Containment Fence Exhibit-2 2026-04-07 (SM) 36 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 37 + 11 + 11.5 + 13 + 14 + 15 + 16 + 15.5 + 14.5 + 15 + 15 + 15 + 14.5+ 16+ 15+ 16.5+ 14.5+ 12+ 10.5 + 9.5+ 9.5+ 12.5+ 13+ 13+ 12 + 16 + 15 + 14+ 14+ 14.5+ 15+ 16+ 17+ 17+ 17 + 17 + 16.5 + 15 + 16 + 16 + 16.5 + 17 + 16.5 + 12 + 10+ 10.5+ 11.5 DRA:N CHEC.ED 6CALE -OB NR. 6HEET NA0E N- - DT CON6ULTING GROU3 T NNER 603 Stanford Ct. Ph (209)772-2233 Fax (209)772-2230 e-mail: tannerconsulting@aol.com Valley Springs, CA 95252 website: www.tannerconsulting.com DATE FEBRUAR< , DRIVING RANGE THE GATE GOLF CLUB, INC. NA3LE6, FLORIDAU- 6ITE 3LAN SITE PLAN CONTRACTOR MUST VERIFY SETBACKS, PROPERTY LINES AND ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHTS BEFORE BUILDING THE RECOMMENDED NETTING.DRAWINGS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC AND ALL DIMENSIONS AND ELEVATIONS MUST BE VERIFIED.Attachment : 222 M+. 7he Gate 1ettLnJ ReceLved38 + 11 + 11.5 + 13 + 14 + 15 + 16 + 15.5 + 14.5 + 15 + 15 + 15 + 14.5+ 16+ 15+ 16.5+ 14.5+ 12+ 10.5 + 9.5+ 9.5+ 12.5+ 13+ 13+ 12 + 16 + 15 + 14+ 14+ 14.5+ 15+ 16+ 17+ 17+ 17 + 17 + 16.5 + 15 +16 + 16 + 16.5 + 17 + 16.5 + 12 + 10+ 10.5+ 11.5 CENTERLINECENTERLINE17° ROTATED OFFSET17° ROTATED OFFSET17° ROTATED OFFSET17° ROTATED OFFSETDRA:N CHEC.ED 6CALE -OB NR. 6HEET NA0E N- - DT CON6ULTING GROU3 T NNER 603 Stanford Ct. Ph (209)772-2233 Fax (209)772-2230 e-mail: tannerconsulting@aol.com Valley Springs, CA 95252 website: www.tannerconsulting.com DATE FEBRUAR< , DRIVING RANGE THE GATE GOLF CLUB, INC. NA3LE6, FLORIDAU- BALL TRA-ECTOR< %ALL TRA-ECTOR< CONTRACTOR MUST VERIFY SETBACKS, PROPERTY LINES AND ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHTS BEFORE BUILDING THE RECOMMENDED NETTING.DRAWINGS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC AND ALL DIMENSIONS AND ELEVATIONS MUST BE VERIFIED. DESIGN TRAJECTORY The USGA tests golf equipment to determine if it conforms to certain specifications relating to the speed with which golf ball leaves the face of a driver. Their testing equipment uses a club-head speed of 109 MPH. However, it is important to note it is possible for a person to swing with faster speeds (for example: Professional Golf level driver swing speed has been measured 140 +-MPH). This trajectory design uses a swing speed for the Driver of 140 MPH in an effort to model a swing by a strong male golfer to achieve a 330.0 yards carry using a Titelist PRO V1Golf Ball. For the purpose of this study, this illustration prepared by Tanner Consulting Group depicts the path of a Titelist PRO V1 GolfBall hit with 9°-10.5° degree lofted driver. Additionally, it assumes the ball was struck in the middle of the club-face that was square to a correct alignment at impact. There is no guarantee that a golfer will be proficient enough to mimic the exact swing conditions to generate this ideal result. If a golf ball is struck with less power and/or accuracy than modeled above, the flight will not be nearly as straight or as far as shown. In addition, it is quite possible that a golfer can exceed the swing speed modeled in this ball trajectory. This can happen when a golfer uses a higher lofted club and/or a taller tee. These factors can increase the height and distance of the ball flight. Also, if a golfer maliciously or purposely attempts to exceed the netting height, they may exceed the height of the netting and balls will exit the facility. Golfers must be responsible for using the facility as it is intended and in a safe and responsible manner. Site management should provide proper supervision and marshalling. The equipment mentioned is specific. New technology is constantly improving golf equipment and with that fact, players will have an increased ability to hit the ball further and higher. For this reason Tanner Consulting Group recommends that the facility has structural engineering allowing for increasing the pole heights of the netting system if needed in the future. A minimum recommendation to consider would be the ability to increase the pole height and netting by 10%. Tanner Consulting Group Disclaimer: Given the unlimited number of variables in the sport of golf, there is no way to guarantee 100% containment of golf balls with any netting installation. The design provided will help to reduce wayward golf shots from exiting the property and is consistent with other netting designs utilized in the golf industry. Tanner Consulting Group is not responsible for golf balls that ricochet off poles, equipment or any other object on or near the facility. Golf Club Driver: CALLAWAY EPIC FLASH 9°-10.5° LOFT Golf Ball: TITELIST PRO V1 GOLF BALL Tee Height: MAXIMUM .75" ABOVE THE TURF FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY, OUR ILLUSTRATIONS SHOW THE BALL HEIGHT AND DISTANCE HIT BY A SPECIFIC CLUB, BALL AND SWING SPEED. THESE ARE GOLF SHOTS THAT ARE HIT STRAIGHT AND CORRECT. THERE IS NO GUARANTY THAT A GOLFER WILL HIT AT THIS SAME SPEED OR ANGLE. IF A GOLF SHOT IS MIS-HIT IT WILL USUALLY NOT TRAVEL AS FAR OR STRAIGHT. FOR THIS REASON, OUR STUDY REFLECTS WHAT WE DETERMINE TO BE "A WORSE CASE SCENARIO WITH THE DETAILED INFORMATION." THE GOLF CLUB WAS SELECTED BY POPULARITY. CENTERLINE 17° ROTATED OFFSET Orientation of Tee alignment Most popular direction of a mis-hit golf shot 39 FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY, OUR ILLUSTRATIONS SHOW THE BALL HEIGHT ANDDISTANCE HIT BY A SPECIFIC CLUB, BALL AND SWING SPEED. THESE ARE GOLF SHOTS THATARE HIT STRAIGHT AND CORRECT. THERE IS NO GUARANTY THAT A GOLFER WILL HIT ATTHIS SAME SPEED OR ANGLE. IF A GOLF SHOT IS MIS-HIT IT WILL USUALLY NOT TRAVEL AS FAR OR STRAIGHT. FOR THIS REASON, OUR STUDY REFLECTS WHAT WE DETERMINE TO BE "A WORSE CASE SCENARIO WITH THE DETAILED INFORMATION." THE GOLF CLUBWAS SELECTED BY POPULARITY.10.5° LOFTED DRIVER 288 YARD CARRY 120 MPH5 IRON 191 Yard Carry 110 MPHSAND WEDGE 115 Yard Carry 100 MPHPITCHING WEDGE 127 Yard Carry 105 MPHBALL TRAJECTORY LEFT SIDE OF RANGE TITELIST PRO V1 GOLF BALL25Y50Y75Y100Y125Y150Y175Y200Y225Y250Y275Y300Y325Y350Y400Y10203040506070809010011012013014015016017018019020021022023024002509° LOFTED DRIVER 312 YARD CARRY 130 MPH9° LOFTED DRIVER 330 YARD CARRY 140 MPHBALL TRAJECTORY/NETTING PLANSDRAWN CHECKED SCALE JOB No.SHEET NAMEN-31" - 50' DT CONSULTING GROUP T NNER 603 Stanford Ct. Ph (209)772-2233 Fax (209)772-2230 e-mail: tannerconsulting@aol.com Valley Springs, CA 95252 website: www.tannerconsulting.com DATE BALL TRAJECTORY/ FEBRUARY 4,2025 DRIVING RANGE THE GATE GOLF CLUB, INC. NAPLES, FLORIDAr-6 1020304050607080901001101201301401501601701801902002102202302400250NETTING PLANS1.5°SLOPEDOWN TO RANGEMAXIMUM TEE HEIGHT34" ABOVE TOP OF TURFCONCRETE TEE SURFACEDRIVING RANGE MAT/TEE N.T.S.N.T.S.+ 11+ 11.5+ 13+ 14+ 15+ 16+15.5+ 14.5+ 15+ 15+ 15+ 14.5+ 16+ 15+ 16.5+ 14.5+ 12+ 10.5+ 9.5+ 10.5+ 11.5+ 1010.5° LOFTED DRIVER 288 YARD CARRY 120 MPH5 IRON 191 Yard Carry 110 MPHSAND WEDGE 115 Yard Carry 100 MPHPITCHING WEDGE 127 Yard Carry 105 MPHNETTING PLAN LEFT SIDE OF RANGE TITELIST PRO V1 GOLF BALL25Y50Y75Y100Y125Y150Y175Y200Y225Y250Y275Y300Y325Y350Y400Y10203040506070809010011012013014015016017018019020021022023024002509° LOFTED DRIVER 312 YARD CARRY 130 MPH9° LOFTED DRIVER 330 YARD CARRY 140 MPH1020304050607080901001101201301401501601701801902002102202302400250#1-60'THESE 4 POLES TO INCLUDE12" STAND-OFFS. SEE STRUCTURALENGINEERS DRAWINGS FOR DETAILS+ 11+ 11.5+ 13+ 14+ 15+ 16+15.5+ 14.5+ 15+ 15+ 15+ 14.5+ 16+ 15+ 16.5+ 14.5+ 12+ 10.5+ 9.5+ 10.5+ 11.5 #2-95'#3-128.5'#4-163'#5-162'#6-161'#7-161.5' #8-162.5' #9-162' #10-162' #11-162' #12-162.5' #13-162' #14-161' #15-160.5' #16-162.5' #17-165' #18-138' #19-120'+ 10NETTING TO BE ATTACHED TO CABLESWITH RS-3 BREAKAWY CARABINERS.6' X 20' GATED ACCESS AREA FOREQUIPMENT. SEE STRUCTURALENGINEERS DRAWINGS FOR DETAILS6' TALL, 1" MESH CHAIN LINKFENCE. NETTING TO ATTACH TOTOP OF CL FENCE.DESIGN TRAJECTORYThe USGA tests golf equipment to determine if it conforms to certain specifications relating to the speed with which golf ball leaves the face of a driver. Their testing equipment uses a club-head speed of 109 MPH. However, it is important to note it is possible for a personto swing with faster speeds (for example: Professional Golf level driver swing speed has been measured 140 +-MPH). This trajectory design uses a swing speed for the Driver of 140 MPH in an effort to model a swing by a strong male golfer to achieve a 330.0 yards carryusing a Titelist PRO V1Golf Ball.For the purpose of this study, this illustration prepared by Tanner Consulting Group depicts the path of a Titelist PRO V1 GolfBall hit with 9°-10.5° degree lofted driver. Additionally, it assumes the ball was struck in the middle of the club-face that was square to a correctalignment at impact. There is no guarantee that a golfer will be proficient enough to mimic the exact swing conditions to generate this ideal result. If a golf ball is struck with less power and/or accuracy than modeled above, the flight will not be nearly as straight or as far asshown. In addition, it is quite possible that a golfer can exceed the swing speed modeled in this ball trajectory. This can happen when a golfer uses a higher lofted club and/or a taller tee. These factors can increase the height and distance of the ball flight.Also, if a golfer maliciously or purposely attempts to exceed the netting height, they may exceed the height of the netting and balls will exit the facility. Golfers must be responsible for using the facility as it is intended and in a safe and responsible manner. Site managementshould provide proper supervision and marshalling.The equipment mentioned is specific. New technology is constantly improving golf equipment and with that fact, players will have an increased ability to hit the ball further and higher. For this reason Tanner Consulting Group recommends that the facility has structuralengineering allowing for increasing the pole heights of the netting system if needed in the future. A minimum recommendation to consider would be the ability to increase the pole height and netting by 10%.Tanner Consulting Group Disclaimer: Given the unlimited number of variables in the sport of golf, there is no way to guarantee 100% containment of golf balls with any netting installation. The design provided will help to reduce wayward golf shots from exiting the propertyand is consistent with other netting designs utilized in the golf industry.Tanner Consulting Group is not responsible for golf balls that ricochet off poles, equipment or any other object on or near the facility.Golf Club Driver: CALLAWAY EPIC FLASH 9°-10.5° LOFTGolf Ball: TITELIST PRO V1 GOLF BALLTee Height: MAXIMUM .75" ABOVE THE TURF CONTRACTOR MUST VERIFY SETBACKS, PROPERTY LINESAND ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHTS BEFORE BUILDINGTHE RECOMMENDED NETTING.DRAWINGS ARE DIAGRAMMATICAND ALL DIMENSIONS AND ELEVATIONS MUST BE VERIFIED.POLE COATINGCoating to be Wasser Netting Pole Coating system.PDS's on all the Wasser products listed, including,1. MC-MioZinc Primer 1002. MC-Universal Primer/Intermediate 1003. MC-Luster Topcoat 1004. MC-Clear 100 applied over 3 Coat system on entire base poles5. PURQuik AcceleratorColor to be selected by owner. Apllication Details to be provided byStructural Engineer and manufacture14' TALLATTACH AT 18'40 FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY, OUR ILLUSTRATIONS SHOW THE BALL HEIGHT ANDDISTANCE HIT BY A SPECIFIC CLUB, BALL AND SWING SPEED. THESE ARE GOLF SHOTS THATARE HIT STRAIGHT AND CORRECT. THERE IS NO GUARANTY THAT A GOLFER WILL HIT ATTHIS SAME SPEED OR ANGLE. IF A GOLF SHOT IS MIS-HIT IT WILL USUALLY NOT TRAVEL AS FAR OR STRAIGHT. FOR THIS REASON, OUR STUDY REFLECTS WHAT WE DETERMINE TO BE "A WORSE CASE SCENARIO WITH THE DETAILED INFORMATION." THE GOLF CLUBWAS SELECTED BY POPULARITY.DRAWN CHECKED SCALE JOB No.SHEET NAMEN-41" - 40' DT CONSULTING GROUP T NNER 603 Stanford Ct. Ph (209)772-2233 Fax (209)772-2230 e-mail: tannerconsulting@aol.com Valley Springs, CA 95252 website: www.tannerconsulting.com DATE NOVEMBER 6, 2024 DRIVING RANGE THE GATE GOLF CLUB, INC. NAPLES, FLORIDACONTRACTOR MUST VERIFY SETBACKS, PROPERTY LINESAND ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHTS BEFORE BUILDINGTHE RECOMMENDED NETTING.DRAWINGS ARE DIAGRAMMATICAND ALL DIMENSIONS AND ELEVATIONS MUST BE VERIFIED.r-5 10.5° LOFTED DRIVER 288 YARD CARRY 120 MPH5 IRON 191 Yard Carry 110 MPHSAND WEDGE 115 Yard Carry 100 MPHPITCHING WEDGE 127 Yard Carry 105 MPHBALL TRAJECTORY RIGHT SIDE OF RANGETITELIST PRO V1 GOLF BALL25Y50Y75Y100Y125Y150Y175Y200Y225Y250Y275Y300Y325Y350Y400Y10203040506070809010011012013014015016017018019020021022023024002509° LOFTED DRIVER 312 YARD CARRY 130 MPH9° LOFTED DRIVER 330 YARD CARRY 130 MPH+ 121020304050607080901001101201301401501601701801902002102202302400250BALL TRAJECTORY/NETTING PLANSBALL TRAJECTORY/ NETTING PLANS+ 12+ 15+ 14+ 14+ 14.5+15+ 16+ 17+ 17+ 17+ 17+ 16.5+ 15+16+ 16+ 16.5+ 17+ 16.5+ 121.5°SLOPEDOWN TO RANGEMAXIMUM TEE HEIGHT34" ABOVE TOP OF TURFCONCRETE TEE SURFACEDRIVING RANGE MAT/TEE N.T.S.N.T.S.DESIGN TRAJECTORYThe USGA tests golf equipment to determine if it conforms to certain specifications relating to the speed with which golf ball leaves the face of a driver. Their testing equipment uses a club-head speed of 109 MPH. However, it is important to note it is possible for a personto swing with faster speeds (for example: Professional Golf level driver swing speed has been measured 140 +-MPH). This trajectory design uses a swing speed for the Driver of 140 MPH in an effort to model a swing by a strong male golfer to achieve a 330.0 yards carryusing a Titelist PRO V1Golf Ball.For the purpose of this study, this illustration prepared by Tanner Consulting Group depicts the path of a Titelist PRO V1 GolfBall hit with 9°-10.5° degree lofted driver. Additionally, it assumes the ball was struck in the middle of the club-face that was square to a correctalignment at impact. There is no guarantee that a golfer will be proficient enough to mimic the exact swing conditions to generate this ideal result. If a golf ball is struck with less power and/or accuracy than modeled above, the flight will not be nearly as straight or as far asshown. In addition, it is quite possible that a golfer can exceed the swing speed modeled in this ball trajectory. This can happen when a golfer uses a higher lofted club and/or a taller tee. These factors can increase the height and distance of the ball flight.Also, if a golfer maliciously or purposely attempts to exceed the netting height, they may exceed the height of the netting and balls will exit the facility. Golfers must be responsible for using the facility as it is intended and in a safe and responsible manner. Site managementshould provide proper supervision and marshalling.The equipment mentioned is specific. New technology is constantly improving golf equipment and with that fact, players will have an increased ability to hit the ball further and higher. For this reason Tanner Consulting Group recommends that the facility has structuralengineering allowing for increasing the pole heights of the netting system if needed in the future. A minimum recommendation to consider would be the ability to increase the pole height and netting by 10%.Tanner Consulting Group Disclaimer: Given the unlimited number of variables in the sport of golf, there is no way to guarantee 100% containment of golf balls with any netting installation. The design provided will help to reduce wayward golf shots from exiting the propertyand is consistent with other netting designs utilized in the golf industry.Tanner Consulting Group is not responsible for golf balls that ricochet off poles, equipment or any other object on or near the facility.Golf Club Driver: CALLAWAY EPIC FLASH 9°-10.5° LOFTGolf Ball: TITELIST PRO V1 GOLF BALLTee Height: MAXIMUM .75" ABOVE THE TURF 10.5° LOFTED DRIVER 288 YARD CARRY 120 MPH5 IRON 191 Yard Carry 110 MPHSAND WEDGE 115 Yard Carry 100 MPHPITCHING WEDGE 127 Yard Carry 105 MPHBALL TRAJECTORY RIGHT SIDE OF RANGETITELIST PRO V1 GOLF BALL25Y50Y75Y100Y125Y150Y175Y200Y225Y250Y275Y300Y325Y350Y400Y10203040506070809010011012013014015016017018019020021022023024002509° LOFTED DRIVER 312 YARD CARRY 130 MPH9° LOFTED DRIVER 330 YARD CARRY 130 MPH+ 121020304050607080901001101201301401501601701801902002102202302400250+ 12+ 15+ 14+ 14+ 14.5+15+ 16+ 17+ 17+ 17+ 17+ 16.5+ 15+16+ 16+ 16.5+ 17+ 16.5+ 12#24-117.5' #25-131.5' #26-163' #27-162.5' #28-162' #29-161' #30-160' #31-160' #32-160' #33-160' #34-160.5' #35-162' #36-161'#37-161'#38-160.5'#39-160'#40-125'#41-91.25'#42-59'NETTING TO BE ATTACHED TO CABLESWITH RS-3 BREAKAWY CARABINERS.6' TALL, 1" MESH CHAIN LINKFENCE. NETTING TO ATTACH TOTOP OF CL FENCE.POLE COATINGCoating to be Wasser Netting Pole Coating system.PDS's on all the Wasser products listed, including,1. MC-MioZinc Primer 1002. MC-Universal Primer/Intermediate 1003. MC-Luster Topcoat 1004. MC-Clear 100 applied over 3 Coat system on entire base poles5. PURQuik AcceleratorColor to be selected by owner. Apllication Details to be provided byStructural Engineer and manufacture41 + 11 + 11.5 + 13 + 14 + 15 + 16 + 15.5 + 14.5 + 15 + 15 + 15 + 14.5+ 16+ 15+ 16.5+ 14.5+ 12+ 10.5 + 9.5+ 9.5+ 12.5+ 13+ 13+ 12HangingSafety Net+ 16 + 15 + 14+ 14+ 14.5+ 15+ 16+ 17+ 17+ 17 + 17 + 16.5 + 15 + 16 + 16 + 16.5 + 17 + 16.5 + 12 + 10+ 10.5+ 11.5 CENTERLINECENTERLINE17° ROTATED OFFSET17° ROTATED OFFSET17° ROTATED OFFSET17° ROTATED OFFSET#1-60'#2- 9 5'#3-128.5'#4-163'#5-162'#6-161'#7-1 61.5' #8-1 62.5'#9-162'#10-162'#11-162'#12-162.5'#13-162'#14-161'#15-160.5'#16-162.5'#17-165'#18-138'#19-120'#20-120'#21-117'#22-116.5'#23-116.5'#24-117.5'#25-131.5'#26-163'#27-162.5'#28-162'#29-161'#30-160'#31-160'#32-160'#33-1 6 0'#34-160.5'#35-162'#36-161'#37- 16 1'#38-160.5'#39- 1 60' #40-1 2 5'#41-91.25'#42-59'DRA:N CHEC.ED 6CALE -OB NR. 6HEET NA0E N- - DT CON6ULTING GROU3 T NNER 603 Stanford Ct. Ph (209)772-2233 Fax (209)772-2230 e-mail: tannerconsulting@aol.com Valley Springs, CA 95252 website: www.tannerconsulting.com DATE FEBRUAR< , DRIVING RANGE THE GATE GOLF CLUB, INC. NA3LE6, FLORIDAU- NETTING 3LAN NETTING PLAN CONTRACTOR MUST VERIFY SETBACKS, PROPERTY LINES AND ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHTS BEFORE BUILDING THE RECOMMENDED NETTING.DRAWINGS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC AND ALL DIMENSIONS AND ELEVATIONS MUST BE VERIFIED. DESIGN TRAJECTORY The USGA tests golf equipment to determine if it conforms to certain specifications relating to the speed with which golf ball leaves the face of a driver. Their testing equipment uses a club-head speed of 109 MPH. However, it is important to note it is possible for a person to swing with faster speeds (for example: Professional Golf level driver swing speed has been measured 140 +-MPH). This trajectory design uses a swing speed for the Driver of 140 MPH in an effort to model a swing by a strong male golfer to achieve a 330.0 yards carry using a Titelist PRO V1Golf Ball. For the purpose of this study, this illustration prepared by Tanner Consulting Group depicts the path of a Titelist PRO V1 GolfBall hit with 9°-10.5° degree lofted driver. Additionally, it assumes the ball was struck in the middle of the club-face that was square to a correct alignment at impact. There is no guarantee that a golfer will be proficient enough to mimic the exact swing conditions to generate this ideal result. If a golf ball is struck with less power and/or accuracy than modeled above, the flight will not be nearly as straight or as far as shown. In addition, it is quite possible that a golfer can exceed the swing speed modeled in this ball trajectory. This can happen when a golfer uses a higher lofted club and/or a taller tee. These factors can increase the height and distance of the ball flight. Also, if a golfer maliciously or purposely attempts to exceed the netting height, they may exceed the height of the netting and balls will exit the facility. Golfers must be responsible for using the facility as it is intended and in a safe and responsible manner. Site management should provide proper supervision and marshalling. The equipment mentioned is specific. New technology is constantly improving golf equipment and with that fact, players will have an increased ability to hit the ball further and higher. For this reason Tanner Consulting Group recommends that the facility has structural engineering allowing for increasing the pole heights of the netting system if needed in the future. A minimum recommendation to consider would be the ability to increase the pole height and netting by 10%. Tanner Consulting Group Disclaimer: Given the unlimited number of variables in the sport of golf, there is no way to guarantee 100% containment of golf balls with any netting installation. The design provided will help to reduce wayward golf shots from exiting the property and is consistent with other netting designs utilized in the golf industry. Tanner Consulting Group is not responsible for golf balls that ricochet off poles, equipment or any other object on or near the facility. Golf Club Driver: CALLAWAY EPIC FLASH 9°-10.5° LOFT Golf Ball: TITELIST PRO V1 GOLF BALL Tee Height: MAXIMUM .75" ABOVE THE TURF FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY, OUR ILLUSTRATIONS SHOW THE BALL HEIGHT AND DISTANCE HIT BY A SPECIFIC CLUB, BALL AND SWING SPEED. THESE ARE GOLF SHOTS THAT ARE HIT STRAIGHT AND CORRECT. THERE IS NO GUARANTY THAT A GOLFER WILL HIT AT THIS SAME SPEED OR ANGLE. IF A GOLF SHOT IS MIS-HIT IT WILL USUALLY NOT TRAVEL AS FAR OR STRAIGHT. FOR THIS REASON, OUR STUDY REFLECTS WHAT WE DETERMINE TO BE "A WORSE CASE SCENARIO WITH THE DETAILED INFORMATION." THE GOLF CLUB WAS SELECTED BY POPULARITY. CENTERLINE 17° ROTATED OFFSET Orientation of Tee alignment Most popular direction of a mis-hit golf shot THESE 4 POLES TO INCLUDE 12" STAND-OFFS. SEE STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS DRAWINGS FOR DETAILS 6' ; 20' GATED ACCESS AREA FORE4UIP0ENT. SEE STRUCTURALENGINEERS DRAWINGS FOR DETAILS 42 .......................... ..... ..... ..... ..... ---------------------- "- --- I'--_ 1 :: ..... ; ..... ..... -- .._ ..................... ----------.......... ..... ............... .......... ..... .......... ..... ................... ..... ;:.':..:-::------------�-..... .......... .......... \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ..... 0 ..... "' <S) ------ t 'c· ' ' :. '. ' ' .,, :: ·.' ·:··:•, N-6 43 . . ' ' . . . I -·a····-_�:./ � . :•"1/ .1/ ..,. • • --- .,_ I ·o I ....l,/ --· .:'\\ /.· / / ..._ __ / I q I " B-"1 /62.5' � I I I . s' I I I I I I ---- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 7 .,,,· ··-•··•··,•·,, .. 7 7 •• · .. · .. · .. ··.",@ # -.:-r.::. 7 . . • ' �1!0 11.0 7 THE GATE GOLF CLUB, INC. DRIVING RANGE -===----�, ---··•·-• ·····-· =,:. / : __ , .-/. .' ; ,,..,. .. • 1ft l!li\1\\;;: /.. ------ / --------�-�-=-=-;,,.,, L N-7 44 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 52 6. New Business b. PL20250013881 - Golf Course Errant Ball Containment Barriers (Accarrino and Commers) – LDCA 53 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 54 1 1.08.02 – Definitions . . . .Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): A document or documents that provide an objective evaluation of the impacts of a proposed development or other alteration of the existing natural conditions on the natural resources, environmental quality, and listed species. Errant Golf Ball Containment Barrier. An errant golf ball containment barrier consists of a netting barrier supported by upright poles and is designed to contain stray golf balls so as to protect players, spectators, and/or neighboring properties; and is typically located within golf courses and/or practice driving ranges. Essential services: Those services and facilities, including utilities, safety services, and other government services, necessary to promote and protect public health, safety and welfare, including but not limited to the following: police; fire, emergency medical, public park and public library facilities; and all services designed and operated to provide water, sewer, gas, telephone, electricity, cable television or communications to the general public by providers that have been approved and authorized according to laws having appropriate jurisdiction, and governmental facilities.. . . 2.03.09 - Open Space Zoning Districts. A. Golf Course and Recreational Use District "GC". The purpose and intent of "GC" district is to provide lands for golf courses, recreational uses, and normal accessory uses, including certain uses of a commercial nature. Recreational uses should be compatible in scale and manner with residential land uses. The GC district shall be in accordance with the urban mixed use district and the agricultural/rural mixed use district of the future land use element of the Collier County GMP. All uses shall be subject to design standards established in LDC section 5.05.15 H, and other applicable LDC standards. The following subsections identify the uses that are permissible by right and the uses that are allowable as accessory or conditional uses in the GC district. . . . . 1.(b). Accessory uses. . . . 7.Errant golf ball containment barriers up to and including thirty-five (35) feet in height, subject to the standards set forth in LDC section 5.03.08. c.Conditional uses. The following uses are permissible as conditional uses in the GC district, subject to the standards and provisions established in LDC section 10.08.00… 11.Errant golf ball containment barriers exceeding thirty-five (35) feet in height or that do not satisfy the design and development standards set forth in LDC section 5.03.08. Attachment 1: Homeowners LDC Amendment - April 2026 55 2 11 12. Any other recreational use which is compatible in nature with the foregoing uses as determined by the Hearing Examiner or Board of Zoning Appeal, as applicable. . . . 4.02.02 - Dimensional Standards for Conditional Uses and Accessory Uses in Base Zoning Districts A.GC District. [Reserved] Accessory uses shall not exceed thirty-five (35) feet in height, unless a conditional use request is granted pursuant to LDC sections 10.08.00 and 5.03.08 (C)(4). . . . 5.03.08 - Errant Golf Ball Containment Barriers in the Golf Course (GC) Zoning District A. Purpose and intent. The purpose and intent of this section is to ensure that errant golf ball containment barriers do not adversely affect residential land uses adjacent to the golf courses and/or driving ranges by establishing design and development standards. An errant golf ball containment barrier consists of a netting barrier supported by upright poles and is designed to contain stray golf balls so as to protect players, spectators, and/or neighboring properties; and is typically located within golf courses and/or practice driving ranges. B.Applicability. These regulations are applicable to errant golf ball containment barriers located within the GC District. C.Design and development standards. 1.General Height and Location Standards. a.Maximum Height: thirty-five (35) feet. b.Required Separation from Property Zoned Or Used For Residential Purposes. The errant golf ball containment barrier shall be positioned at a minimum distance of two (2) feet from any property zoned or used for residential purposes for every one (1) foot of height of the errant golf ball containment barrier up to 35 feet. c. Setback. Except as otherwise provided in this section, errant golf ball containment barriers shall be set back twenty (20) feet from any property line that is not in common ownership with the golf course or driving range. d.Required Setback Adjacent to Public Right-of-Way: One (1) foot for each foot in height, but no less than twenty (20) feet. 5656 3 e. Errant golf ball containment barriers shall not be located within a Lake Maintenance Easement. 2. Netting and pole requirements when the errant golf ball containment barrier is within three hundred (300) feet of property zoned or used for residential purposes: a. Netting used in the errant golf ball containment barrier shall be low visibility, with a twine diameter of one (1) millimeter or less. b. Errant golf ball containment barrier poles shall be constructed of wood, aluminum or steel, and, if aluminum or steel is used, the poles shall be powder coated or painted a grayish green or sage green matte color. 3. Landscape screening requirements. a. A cluster of trees (“pole cluster planting”) shall be planted in front of each errant golf ball containment barrier pole. See Figure 5.03.08 C. If both sides of the poles are facing property zoned or used for residential purposes that is located within three hundred (300) feet of the errant golf ball containment barrier, then pole cluster plantings shall be required to be installed on both sides of the poles. Each pole cluster planting shall consist of a minimum of three (3) trees clustered and adjacent to each upright pole. One of the trees shall be planted in the center of the cluster as set forth in Figure 5.03.08 C. The other trees shall be spaced no less than twenty (20) feet on center and no more than thirty (30) feet on center. The required pole cluster plantings shall be planted at a minimum distance of one-half (1/2) of the tree’s average mature spread from the errant golf ball containment barrier, but in any case no less than twelve (12) feet from the errant golf ball containment barrier. 5757 4 Figure 5.03.08 C 5858 5 b. Minimum Plant Standards for Pole Cluster Plantings. All proposed trees for the pole cluster plantings shall have a minimum mature height of thirty-five (35) feet. All trees must have a minimum mature spread of twenty (20) feet. At the time of planting, trees shall be a minimum of twelve (12) feet in height with a 1 3/4-inch caliper. Palms may not be used. Plant material shall follow the native requirements as set forth in General Landscape Requirements Section 4.06.05 (D) and Figure 4.06.05 D. c. Existing, native vegetation of the minimum required size and located within a twenty (20) foot radius of each pole can be used to meet these screening requirements. If native vegetation is present but there are not enough trees of the minimum required size, supplemental landscaping must be used to meet the screening requirements. 4. Relief from design and development standards. An applicant requesting a Conditional Use may request a deviation from the design and development standards of this section as part of the Conditional Use request. Criteria for the deviation will be the criteria set forth in LDC Section 10.08.00 D. 5. The errant golf ball containment barrier and related landscaping shall be shown on site development plans and construction plans. 5959 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 60 1 Quail Creek Homeowners’ LDC Amendment Narrative and Opposition to Quail Creek Country Club’s LDC Amendment Brief Summary The homeowners at Quail Creek Estates (the “Homeowners”) strongly oppose Quail Creek Country Club’s proposed amendment for 70-foot “errant ball containment barriers.” Quail Creek’s Land Development Code Amendment (“LDCA”) proposal should be rejected. It is an after-the-fact attempt to legitimize an illegally built structure that vastly exceeds the existing County height limitation of 35 feet, and would needless damage Quail Creek homeowners as well as other golf residential homeowners throughout the County. The Homeowners have proposed their own LDCA as a reasonable compromise. Our amendment balances competing goals by preserving the value of Collier County residential development as much as possible, while providing safety to golfers. Our proposed language sets forth location, height and design requirements for these errant ball barriers. Meanwhile, golf courses would be permitted to build barriers up to 35 feet high. Barriers in excess of 35 feet or that don’t comply with the other criteria may be considered as a conditional use. I. Preliminary Statement The Homeowners’ residences abut the driving range and golf course of the Quail Creek Country Club (“Quail Creek,” the “Club”). They have been adversely affected for two years by starkly industrial black 63-foot high poles that Quail Creek installed without a permit but with an illegal contractor in April of 2024. The Club got caught in its own attempt to avoid Collier County permitting requirements and the GC District height restriction. The Club intended the poles to support an 850-foot-long golf barrier that would protect only private golfers that play golf on a single one of its 36 fairways, not the public or residents. The barrier was meant to replace the originally designed safety barrier of trees that the golf club inexplicably removed, and a netting fence that the Club let fall into total disrepair. When Quail Creek did apply for a permit, its application was rejected by the Zoning Division in June of 2024, on the grounds that the barrier’s enormous height exceeds the 35-foot maximum in the GC District. Quail Creek never even bothered to commission a trajectory analysis to determine how high its barrier needed to be, nor did it do any research into the actual appearance of what it was buying. The Club has steadfastly ignored the legitimate concerns of the surrounding residents, people whose life savings are invested in their homes. It has repeatedly refused the homeowners’ good-faith offers to work out a compromise through mediation. Instead, this golf club has aggressively pushed for its unlawful barrier for the past two years, causing Attachment 2: Quail Creek Homeowner Narrative and Opposition 61 2 adjacent homeowners to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars in the market value of their homes. Due to the presence of the giant black barrier poles, one affected home in Quail Creek has sold at only half of its original list price, a markdown of $1.25 million. Another is now ﬁnally under contract, and the homeowners ascribe $500,000 of its sale price reduction to the presence of the illegal poles. See infra at 22-23. Buyers refuse to negotiate when an enormous eyesore now sits behind your home. The Club plainly does not care. The procedural maneuvers the Club has made since Jule of 2024, a variance application and a request for an Ofﬁcial Interpretation, have failed. Quail Creek admitted its own Code violations before the Code Enforcement Special Magistrate, and ﬁnes of $200 a day have been running since August 2, 2025. Quail Creek is deﬁant —it has refused to take down its poles, which have created an incongruous blight in our neighborhood. Quail Creek now seeks to turn its own noncompliance into a County-wide LDC amendment to permit the installation of 70 foot tall “skyscraper” golf barriers (twice the existing height limitation) throughout Collier County as of right, with affected homeowners to be afforded no public hearing or opportunity for comment. This amendment is Quail Creek’s latest gambit to legitimize its illegally built structure. By this means, they attempt to take the spotlight off themselves and their own noncompliance. A Quail Creek golf member has even commenced Code Enforcement cases against Imperial and Hibiscus, the other GC District golf courses with unpermitted fences. It is revealing that a Quail Creek golfer was the ﬁrst to make such objections. The residents of those golf courses have not objected, though those barriers have been in place for many years. The Quail Creek example illustrates the potential harm to other Collier County homeowners of an enormous, industrial-style barrier newly installed in a residential community, towering almost 70 feet above its surroundings. See Exhibit A (photographs). No other golf course barrier in the County is nearly as adverse to homeowners as Quail Creek’s. In the ﬁrst place, the Quail Creek barrier protects only private golfers, not residents or the public. The Club’s barrier is the highest of all at nearly 70 feet, and the only one that cuts across the entire ﬁeld of vision of estate-level homes. Imperial and Hibiscus, for example, have substantial camouﬂage for their barriers, which protect residents, not golfers. Quail Creek’s barrier poles are the most unsightly: shiny, black and prisonlike. And the Club doesn’t care enough to arrange adequate screening for nearby homeowners. Instead, its LDCA claims before the County that 20 foot tall palms are “screening” for a 70 foot tall, hideous black barrier. Most recently, Quail Creek claims that “absolute safety” is necessary for its private golfers, overshadowing the damage being done to longstanding residential development in the community where it sits. It argues that the County should rely on the type of trajectory studies that were done for a Top Golf-type facility that lies right next to a busy highway, 6262 3 instead of the typical industry-standard containment studies that rely on probabilistic trajectory modeling for determining fence height. As you listen to Quail Creek’s presentation, please keep in mind the following: • The Club designed its own driving range to sit right next to a golf fairway, Hole 10 of its Creek course • Quail Creek deliberately removed the originally designed tree barrier that had been in place since 1981 to protect Hole 10 golfers from driving range balls (see Exhibits (Z, AA, BB ) • The Club then replaced that tree barrier with a row of palms which provided no value as a barrier (Exhibit A-1-- 2012 and 2023 views) and a 12-foot netting fence which the Club allowed to fall into complete disrepair (Exhibit CC) • Quail Creek did no trajectory studies before choosing the height of an enormous fence (Exhibit DD at 1) • The Club places children that are learning to play golf opposite the main driving range and within the area covered by the intended driving range barrier (Exhibit HH) • Despite all the dangers it is claiming in order to justify its 70 foot barrier, the Club is now proposing to expand its driving range tee stations 50 yards closer to Hole 10, making Hole 10 much more dangerous (Exhibit II) • The Club refuses to use limited-flight balls to protect its golfers. • Other golf clubs in the County have driving ranges placed alongside fairways, and those fairways are protected by tree barriers instead of a fence (Exhibit Z-1) • During the entire two-year pendency of the proceedings over its illegal fence, the Club has continued to operate Hole 10 and its driving range exactly as it had before, with no operational safeguards or other changes in place • Finally, we have proved through expert studies that a 35 feet height is adequate for Quail Creek’s barrier needs. (Exhibit D, D-1) Taking a broader view, the essence of zoning is that it ensures compatible land uses and protects property values. Thus, LDC amendments cannot be considered in a vacuum. But that is precisely what Quail Creek’s LDCA proposal does, utterly ignoring the very real property value and other interests of homeowners whose properties abut the GC District. Super-high, “skyscraper” barriers placed within view of residences disrupt the status quo between the golf course and the neighborhood, and are damaging to homeowner values. A certiﬁed residential appraiser testiﬁes that any home with a view of an ultra-high barrier will “suffer due to this external obsolescence, causing negative market value impacts.” See 6363 4 Exhibit B ¶ 9. (Declaration of Burkhard Klein). This has been documented by two actual sales of affected homes at prices well below their previous market value. As golf course residents, we support a solution that balances golf safety considerations with aesthetic and property value concerns. That is the goal of our proposed changes to the LDC, which would also comply with the existing requirement in the GC District that recreational uses be compatible in “scale and manner” with residential land uses. See LDC § 2.03.09. Minimally visually obtrusive means to achieve safety on golf courses should be used to avoid unnecessary damage to the value of surrounding residential development. Our proposed amendment sets forth, among other things, that a 35-foot height limit applies to accessory GC District uses, including golf barriers. This merely clariﬁes law that has existed since 1974 for the GC District in Collier County. An errant ball containment barrier in excess of 35 feet in height could now be permitted as a conditional use. Ultrahigh barriers would thus be considered on a case-by-case basis. This is a reasonable approach, especially since existing residential homeowners stand to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars in home equity if confronted with the installation of ultra-high, discordant golf barriers. i. Standards to Govern Errant Ball Containment Barriers Our proposal would deﬁne and regulate “errant ball containment barriers” as an accessory use within the GC District. Such barriers are intended to protect players, spectators and neighboring properties from the risk of stray balls. These barriers can look industrial, even prison-like. But in Collier County, any errant ball containment barrier within 300 feet of residences would be subject to the height, location and design standards we propose in order to make it as unobtrusive as possible to nearby residential properties, thus preserving the compatibility of the golf course with the residences nearby. The existing 35-foot height limitation in GC Districts is essential to making errant ball containment barriers in residential golf communities proportionate and preserving property values. At that height, the barriers are not visible from the front of the homes. They are at the treeline instead of 35 feet above it, and don’t block the sky or darken the sunlight. They are at a height where camouﬂaging their height with trees is possible. See Exhibit C (photos showing 35 foot high line superimposed on Quail Creek barrier). ii. Safety Reports from not just one, but two, independent golf experts establish that a 35-foot barrier are more than adequate for safety in the Quail Creek situation. In cases where that height is not adequate on its own, alternative remedies are available, in addition to the conditional use procedure set forth in LDC §10.08. One of the golf experts, Joseph M. Groch, a golf professor at nearby Florida Gulf Coast University, explains through peer-reviewed trajectory and statistical analysis that a 35-foot barrier can block almost all errant shots at the Quail Creek course, at 99.9962%. “The 35- foot net with an arc-tee conﬁguration provides superior aesthetics and safe containment with 6464 5 40% less visual impact than a 60-foot straight-tee barrier. Incorporating vegetation buffers and standard operational controls, the design achieves 99.9962% containment, meeting or exceeding industry standards.” Exhibit D at 1. The arc-tee conﬁguration means that the tee stations arc slightly to the left, away from the area of concern, a very inexpensive and noninvasive change. See generally Exhibit D. This barrier with the arcing achieves 99.9962% safety, or a .0038% error rate (the risk that a ball will be hit over a barrier at all). Based on the area of Hole 10, he estimates the risk of actually hitting a Hole 10 golfer when a 35 foot barrier is present at .0000182%. And multiplying that probability by the number of balls hit on the driving range per year, estimating that to be 1,000,000, he estimates that .182 of a ball per year would be likely to actually hit a golfer on Hole 10, less than one-fifth of one ball per year. This .0000182% probability is much lower than the generalized risk of being hit by a ball elsewhere on the golf course, which is about 1 in 5,000, or .02%. There are many alternatives that can achieve golfer safety while minimizing damage to the neighbors. Our two independent golf experts discuss the various means that may be used to alleviate the danger from stray balls. Exhibit D at 12-13; Exhibit E at 11-12. As these experts explain, golf barriers can often be avoided altogether by the use of thoughtful and analytical approaches like landscaping methods such as trees and shrubs, hedgerows or high berms; adding a much smaller barrier closer to the tee box to catch stray balls closer to the point of origin; and golf restrictions such as self-limiting balls (which were formerly used at Quail Creek), repositioning tee stations to be angled away from the area of concern, and irons-only policies. See Exhibit E at 13-14. In an addendum to his report, Mr. Groch analyzed, from a statistical perspective, the positive effect that the use of limited flight golf balls would have on safety. Exhibit D at 14-16. Mr. Groch points out that “a 60-foot proposed net, when compared with a 35-foot option, adds little efficacy but at a great cost to the environment.” Exhibit D at 13. iii. Conditional Use Procedure An “ultra-high” errant ball containment barrier exceeding 35 feet in height would only be permitted as a conditional use pursuant to LDC § 10.08. Where these higher barriers might actually be necessary, the conditional use procedure is a very appropriate vehicle for considering the installation of an ultra-high golf barrier in a residential area. The conditional use procedure would provide notice to affected homeowners when any golf barrier is planned exceeding 35 feet. This procedure provides actual notice to affected homeowners of a neighborhood information meeting at which a County planner would be present, as well as a public hearing. The public hearing would give affected homeowners an opportunity to be heard. Residential landowners to be affected by an errant ball containment barrier, the ones who will be permanently viewing it, would have a voice. The conditional use process will also ensure that any ultra--high containment barrier will be in harmony with the general intent of the LDC and consistent with the Growth Management 6565 6 Plan (“GMP”), will beneﬁt the public welfare and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or adjoining properties. For example, many such barriers are installed to actually protect nearby residents. The circumstances of each ultra-high system will differ, so the conditional use process is uniquely suited to provide appropriate review. A conditional use procedure would also be available for deviation from the design and development requirements of our proposed amendment if necessary. In summary, our proposed LDC Amendment clariﬁes the existing height regulations for the GC District, provides design and location criteria to make sure these errant ball containment barriers can be as unobtrusive as possible, and offers the conditional use process to protect the compatibility of residences around GC Districts when an errant ball containment barrier higher than 35 feet is being proposed. That process would help homeowners preserve their property values as much as possible by giving them input and an opportunity to be heard. This will make Collier County golf courses and their adjacent residential communities as beautiful as possible, while safety considerations are satisfied as well. Collier County could serve as a model to other golf courses throughout Florida by harmonizing these objectives. iv. The “Floodgates” Argument Quail Creek’s attorney raised a “floodgates” argument at the initial hearing on March 17, 2026 (before the Land Development Review subcommittee of the Development Services Advisory Committee), claiming that it would be time consuming and onerous for other golf courses and the County staff to deal with the conditional use procedure to obtain permits for their heretofore unpermitted golf barriers. Throughout this controversy, Quail Creek has complained about golf courses in the County that have installed golf barriers higher than 35 feet with no permit. Among these, it specifically refers to two other golf courses that are also in the GC District, Hibiscus and Imperial. Quail Creek Narrative at 5. At the initial hearing on March 17, 2026, the Club’s counsel referred to additional golf courses located in PUDs that also do not have a permit. In the first place, making things administratively “easy” for golf courses that have evaded the County’s permitting requirements for many years and thus may have erected unsafe structures should not be a primary focus as these LDC amendments are considered. Much more important is preserving and protecting the value of existing development in a reasonable compromise between golf course safety and aesthetics, as is embodied in the Homeowners’ LDC amendment. Next, County staff is not concerned. Staff had actually suggested the conditional use procedure in response to the initial draft of Quail Creek’s LDC amendment as well as our own. Quail Creek rejected that idea, but we adopted it. Concern for these golf clubs is misplaced. They never obtained permits for their barriers to begin with, so they would have to do substantial paperwork to get them. This will likely 6666 7 involve filing structural diagrams for projects that were put in place decades ago, in many cases, and obtaining wind studies for their supertall structures. Other barriers may not comply with the Florida Building Code and may need additional foundational or other support. The Valencia club’s barrier, for one, does not look like it was properly installed. It will likely need to be shored up or redesigned to get a permit. This administrative/structural work has nothing to do with the conditional use, but relates to the fact that these clubs built unpermitted barriers. Not many golf courses are involved. There are not many GC golf districts in Collier County. Other than Quail Creek, Imperial, and Hibiscus, there are only four. See Exhibit F. And only three apparently need permits for illegally installed golf barriers. Quail Creek’s concern is remarkably disingenuous. In January of 2026, Quail Creek itself instituted Code Enforcement proceedings against the Hibiscus and Imperial golf clubs, the two GC District clubs with unpermitted golf barriers, by making complaints against them. Mr. Christopher Ragain, a Quail Creek golfer who is a resident of neither the Imperial nor Hibiscus communities, made each of those complaints. Exhibit G at 1, 4. He attempted to initiate the Imperial complaint anonymously, but it was rejected by the County, and he had to make a second complaint in early February using his name. These complaints were most likely made at the request of Quail Creek management or its lawyers. Having embroiled Imperial and Hibiscus in Code proceedings that previously didn’t exist, Quail Creek’s claims of concern on their behalf are simply false. The commencement of the Code Enforcement cases against Hibiscus and Imperial coincides with the pending hearings on Quail Creek’s proposed LDC amendment. Quail Creek’s strategy to get its LDC amendment approved appears to be to make passage of its LDC amendment more likely by creating a group of golf clubs that would beneﬁt from the County passing legislation that allows 70-foot tall golf barriers as of right. But the Hibiscus and Imperial situations are very different from Quail Creek’s. Each has a fence at the end of a very short driving range that has been put in place for the residents’ safety. Hibiscus’ barrier has been in place since at least 2005. Imperial’s has been there at least since 2010. There are no complaints about the barriers from affected residents for either of these properties. The ﬁrst complaint about these unpermitted barriers has come, not from the residents, but from Quail Creek. So, unlike Quail Creek, those golf courses are unlikely to encounter any opposition from residents if they request a conditional use. Finally, the idea that even Quail Creek’s proposed LDC amendment will allow easy approval of the barriers of the other golf clubs is a mirage. Assuming that Code cases were initiated against them, several of the other golf courses would have to seek conditional use approvals under either proposed LDC amendment, not because of the height of their barriers, but because their existing vegetation is not exactly as prescribed, distances are different, or other factors. 6767 8 For example, Wilderness (approx. 35 feet), Eagle Creek (approx. 10 feet), and Olde Cypress (33-35 feet) all have distances from the golf barriers in certain locations that are less than the “one (1) foot for each foot in height” distance set forth in the Club’s proposed amendment. See Exhibit H hereto (screenshots with distances from Google Earth). The fences are in those locations to protect residents’ safety. At the April 21 hearing, Quail Creek admitted that Audubon, too, would need a conditional use permit. II. Consistency with the GMP Our legislative proposal is consistent with the GMP because it clarifies existing law on GC district height restrictions of 35 feet for accessory uses, including errant ball containment barriers. It is also consistent with the 35-foot height limitation in surrounding residential development, including the RSF-1, RSF-2, RSF-3, RSF-4, RSF-5, RSF-6, and RMF-6 districts. The surrounding homes of the Quail Creek golf course are zoned RSF-2. Design, location and height standards for all errant ball containment barriers will ensure compatibility with existing residential land uses. See infra at 11-13. Moreover, our proposal integrates existing development with golf course needs by allowing surrounding residential homeowners to have a voice as provided in the conditional use procedure where any golf course barrier is planned exceeding 35 feet or deviates from the design and development requirements. This will avoid unnecessary depletion of the value and enjoyment of existing residential development. III. Legislative Background: Height in the GC District Has Always Been Restricted Our proposed amendment clariﬁes existing law, providing that, consistent with legislative history in the GC District: A height restriction of 35 feet applies to all accessory uses in the Golf Course District, including any golf course or driving range barriers. Errant ball containment barriers over 35 feet high can be permitted as a conditional use. (The existing 35 foot restriction on principal uses in the GC District will remain in existing Table 2 of LDC Section 4.02.01, Dimensional Standards for Principal Uses in Base Zoning Districts.) It has always been the BCC’s intent to regulate height in the GC District, which is one in which golf courses are typically interwoven with residences. Those restrictions are especially important now that residential development has grown up around the golf courses in GC Districts. In addition, the Zoning Director has recently issued an Ofﬁcial Interpretation ﬁnding that golf barrier barriers are limited to 35 feet. 6868 9 Passage of any LDC amendment that allows golf barriers to exceed the 35 foot height restriction written into the GC District could give rise to claims against the County for unconstitutional takings and/or Bert Harris claims. The external obsolescence would impose an “inordinate burden” on the existing uses in the GC and other districts, making the property owner “permanently unable to attain the reasonable, investment-backed expectation for the existing use of the real property.” Remedies include payments in lieu of onsite mitigation, which is impossible here, and purchase of the real property. See Fla. Stat. §70.001-002. A prominent view of an industrial-style barrier (evocative of factories and prisons) in previously parklike residential settings will rob homeowners of home equity they have accrued through the price they paid based largely on the view, long years of homeownership, repairs, payment of property taxes and HOA fees, and costly improvements added to their homes. In many cases, a golf course resident’s home is their largest investment and the embodiment of their life savings. i. Legislative History The Board of County Commissioners in Collier Couty restricted heights in the GC District from the very beginning. It called for “harmony” in such districts in relation to landscaping, location of access streets, parking areas and buffer areas. Later, the LDC added an overarching requirement that recreational uses be compatible in “scale and manner” with residential land uses—in other words, with the nearby homes. The BCC restricted heights in the GC District from 1974 on. In 1974, the provision in the LDC deﬁning Golf Course Districts, § 11.22, provided for a maximum height of 35 feet above grade within 150 feet of any district that was restricted to 30 feet in height, and “except 45 feet elsewhere within the district.” Ordinance 74-12 at 77 - 78 (attached hereto as Exhibit I). The height provision was part of the GC District description and therefore covered everything. It was not limited to certain types of uses. In 1975, the provision for the GC District on height stayed the same for the most part, but the BCC took out the confusing word “except,” making it even clearer that height was to be regulated. Ordinance 75-24 at § 26 (Book 9 page 243) (Exhibit J). In 1991, the Golf Course District was amended to provide that a height limitation of 35 feet would apply to all permitted, accessory, and conditional uses in the Golf Course District. (Exhibit K, Ordinance 91-102 at 2-6 to 2-7, §§ 2.2.1.4; 2.2.1.4.4). The height of lighting was restricted to 25 feet. §2.2.1.4.10 (Exhibit K). In 1992, language was added making pro shops in excess of 1,000 square feet and restaurants with seating for more than 150 primarily for golf course patrons, conditional uses. Ordinance 92-73, 2.2.1.3. (Exhibit L). In 2004, the BBC enacted a major recodiﬁcation of the LDC, Ordinance 04-41. In its recitals, the ordinance provided that “the revisions to, and recodiﬁcation of the LDC does not substantively alter in any way the prior existing LDC text and the substantive provisions of 6969 10 this Ordinance are hereby determined to be consistent with and to implement the Collier County Growth Management Plan…”. 2 -3 of 6 (emphasis added) (Exhibit M). Ordinance 04-41 provided that, and the LDC still provides that: “in the event this Ordinance conflicts with any other ordinance of Collier County or of any other statute, code, local resolution, regulation or other applicable federal, state, or local law, the more stringent standard, limitation, or requirement shall govern or prevail to the extent of the conflict, except that in the event that any provisions of the adopted, re- codified LDC should result in the unintended consequence of an unresolved conflict with the provisions of the previously adopted LDC, as amended, the prior provisions will be considered to apply. “ Emphasis added. LDC § 5, Conflict and Severability, Ordinance 04- 41 (Exhibit M at page 5 of 6). In the 2004 version, the description of the GC District was for some reason dramatically curtailed. What had been several paragraphs and sub-paragraphs became one small paragraph. The paragraph no longer listed specific principal, accessory or conditional uses. The new description in its entirety was as follows: “The purpose and intent of the “GC” District is to provide land for golf courses and normal accessory uses to golf courses, including certain uses of a commercial nature. The GC district shall be in accordance with the urban mixed use district and the agricultural rural district of the future land use element of the Collier County GMP. “ Exhibit M, 22 of 176. It was in this same version of the LDC that the table of heights for principal uses in various districts, including the GC District, was promulgated. Table 2 [of Article 4], Building Dimension Standards for Principal Uses in Base Zoning Districts provided for a “maximum building height” of 35 feet for the GC District. Exhibit M at 2, 3 of 247. So, when Table 2 was put in place, there was no longer a verbal description of the specific principal, accessory or conditional uses of the GC District in the LDC. Obviously, the main principal use of the GC District, a golf course itself, is not a building or structure with a height that needs to be regulated. Hiking trails, passive recreation areas (picnic areas and benches) and disc golf are also at ground level. Since a golf course is by necessity at ground level, Table 2, if taken literally, has no practical application. Applying the table literally would have the absurd result of rescinding the previously mandated height restriction of 35 feet for all uses in the GC District, and resulting in no effective height regulation in the GC District. Permit applicants in the County have long interpreted the 35-foot height restriction to apply to accessory uses. Indeed, Quail Creek’s own engineers acknowledged in its variance application exhibits that accessory uses in the GC District are limited in height when they noted that 35 feet was the “maximum building height.” Exhibit N. They noted that the cart barn had a height of 29.42 inches, the club house was 31.77 feet tall, the halfway house was 14.83 feet tall. These are all accessory uses, not principal uses. The barrier, however, was listed at 60 feet: not in compliance. 7070 11 Because the 2004 version of the Code was expressly meant to be a recodification and did not intend to make a substantive revision to the previously existing height restrictions, the prior, 1991 version should control. It seems likely that the severe shortening of the GC District description in 2004 led to its being inadvertently included in a table for the heights of principal uses, since the listing of its specific accessory uses of restaurants, snack shops, driving ranges, and clubhouses and their ilk was now missing. Indeed, in later versions of the LDC, the full description of GC District uses, explaining that the “golf course” was a permitted use and that a clubhouse, community center, practice driving range, snack shops were accessories, was added back. This occurred first in 2008. See Exhibit O (Ordinance 08-11, 128 -129 of 134). Yet Table 2 of the building dimensional standards remained, and with it the nominal restriction on the height of only principal uses—which are ground-level uses (and fences). We have thus proposed that clarifying language be put into the GC District description that restates the pre-2004 language to the effect that a height of 35 feet would apply to all accessory uses in the Golf Course District, but that errant ball containment barriers may be over 35 feet if permitted as a conditional use. ii. Golf Barriers Are Limited to 35 Feet The Zoning Director, in response to the Club’s request, has very recently interpreted the LDC to the effect that golf course barriers are limited to 35 feet. (“OI Decision,” Exhibit P). Mr. Bosi could also have decided that their height was limited to 8 feet, without a variance. A front yard fence for a property of one acre or less, like our properties, is limited to 4 feet, LDC § 5.03.02 (C)(1) (b), and 6 feet for larger lots. LDC § 5.03.02 (C) (2) (a). Even in commercial areas, fences are limited to 8 feet. LDC § 5.03.02 (D) (1). Since golf course uses are to be compatible in scale and manner with residential uses, these limits make much more sense where the view of homeowners is involved. LDC § 5.03.02 (emphasis added). Fences in all districts are subject to the rules set forth in LDC § 5.03.2, unless specifically exempted. (emphasis added). The GC District is NOT exempted. The fences within agricultural districts are exempted, LDC § 5.03.02 E. showing that certain districts were considered for exemption, but the GC District is not one of them. This provides an 8-foot fence height for a commercial district such as the Quail Creek Country Club. The fence provision in the LDC restricts the height of fences to the single digits because fences can infringe on and interfere with the view of those nearby. “Where any provision of these regulations, the GMP, or any other law or regulation in effect in Collier County, Florida, imposes greater restrictions upon the subject matter than any other provision of these regulations, the GMP, or any other law or regulation in effect in 7171 12 Collier County, Florida, the provision imposing the greater restriction or regulation shall be deemed to be controlling.” LDC. § 1.03.01 (d). So, it could be argued that the lesser of the 8-foot height limit for fences in commercial districts (LDC § 5.03.02) and the 35-foot limit for principal uses in Table 2 of LDC § 4.02.01 applies. But Mr. Bosi decided that the 35-foot height in Table 2 of LDC § 4.02.01 applied to limit the height of the Club’s barrier. Exhibit P. So that is what we have included in our proposed amendment. IV. “Good Fences Make Good Neighbors”: Errant Ball Golf Barriers Should Be Required to Follow Location, Design and Height Standards For Collier County residents with lots abutting or near a golf course in the GC District , an errant ball barrier, whatever its size, may cause external obsolescence to their homes, leading to an immediate and precipitous decline in property value. As in the Quail Creek example, those views would be blocked forever by an enormous black barrier, overtly industrial in appearance. An errant ball containment barrier can dramatically destroy formerly expansive views, and hence the market value of affected homes.. See Exhibit B ¶ 9 (appraiser declaration). The objective is therefore to achieve safety on golf courses in GC Districts in this County by minimally visually obtrusive means. i. Design and Development Standards We thus propose certain design and development standards. The location of any errant ball containment barrier must be placed at least two feet away from property zoned or used for residential purposes for every one foot of height of the golf barrier. Should safety to those homes require a closer distance, the conditional use procedure is available. In addition, design requirements would be imposed when the barrier is within 300 feet of property zoned or used for residential purposes. These relate to the type of netting to be used, the poles, and landscape screening for the beneﬁt of those nearby residences. Height Height is a crucial element of a fence in a residential area. Height needs to be limited in proportion with surrounding residential development and trees. Since a 35-foot fence is more or less level with the treeline and matches the maximum height in both the residential districts and the GC district, it is much less damaging. A taller barrier would block the sky and the light and cover up the view from the neighbors’ homes, as shown in the Quail Creek pictures. See generally Exhibit A. It would be, by far, the highest thing anywhere around, and naturally draw the eye toward a very unsightly structure. Netting 7272 13 Netting should be of a twine thickness of 1 millimeter or less for optimal aesthetic appearance. This will be almost transparent. One type of netting on the market is called Dyneema #6, made of polyethylene with a .8 millimeter diameter. This was designed speciﬁcally for the purpose of golf netting. It has a higher breaking strength and better durability than polyester netting. See Exhibit Q, contrasting the coarse, ropelike netting planned by Quail Creek and the much more transparent, lighter in weight Dyneema netting. The last two photos in Exhibit Q show an errant ball containment barrier with netting similar to that planned by Quail Creek, contrasted with a single-panel Dyneema barrier. As shown in these photos, the lighter, seamless netting does not sag and presents a much better appearance in a residential area. The thickness of the netting dictates how visible it is. We have seen many examples of the heavier, 2 mm twine fabric in use, and it has several drawbacks, especially its appearance. The heavier weight of a typical 2 mm netting fabric per square foot makes it sag, especially over time. Lighter, thinner netting does not sag, allowing for a much more transparent appearance. Heavier weight netting also typically needs panels every twenty feet of its height, creating visible dividers, or seams, that add not only to their visibility but also the industrial look of the installation. Dyneema netting, for example, allows for single panels of netting up to a height of 52 feet, so that unsightly dividers are minimized. Therefore, it is much more conducive to a residential setting, which is the only place that these design requirements would apply. Heavier netting also requires a thicker, more industrial pipe style pole, which is evocative of factories and prisons and is not appropriate in a residential setting. The poles at Quail Creek are currently a 50-inch circumference, which is unsightly near residences. With lighter weight netting and a barrier of a height of 35 feet, the poles can be significantly thinner: the poles can be at a 12-inch diameter at the base (37 inch circumference) and taper to 8 inches (25 inch circumference). Thinner netting does not mean weaker netting. For example, the twine of the Dyneema #6 netting made by Netex is .8 mm thick. Made of polyethylene, its breaking strength is 103 pounds, while the breaking strength of the 1.3 mm polyester product is only 95 pounds. Fewer poles and less landscaping make a containment barrier project less expensive as well as less obtrusive to neighboring properties. Using Dyneema netting, a 40-foot barrier with wooden poles can place the poles 60 feet apart instead of 50. A 30-foot barrier with steel poles can have the poles placed 71 feet apart instead of 50. More poles per foot are needed to support the weight of heavier netting. For example, the 2 mm netting will need a pole every 50 feet, whereas depending on the height of the poles, netting with a .8 mm thickness will only need one every 60 or 70 feet, cutting down on necessary landscaping and cost. The polyethylene used by Netex is dyed instead of coated, so it lasts much longer against UV degradation (15 year warranty) than the usual industrial netting product, which is coated 7373 14 black instead of dyed and comes with only a 10 year warranty. The Dyneema polyethylene has a life expectancy of 25 years, with the life expectancy of polyester nets being only 10 to 15 years. The thinner netting is really a far superior product for this purpose and is much better to enhance the compatibility of the golf course barriers in residential communities. Otherwise, property values would be negatively affected by sagging netting, more poles and partitions between each panel—creating an industrial look which is incongruous in a residential setting. Landscaping To Mitigate the Barrier’s Appearance Since the netting would be much less obvious, only the poles of the barrier would need camouﬂage. 1 In consultation with a landscape architect, we adopted the idea of a “pole cluster planting” to include at least three trees of a 20 foot minimum canopy spread. All must be chosen to reach an ultimate height of 35 feet to camouﬂage the poles from the residences. One tree must be in the center of the cluster for best camouﬂaging of the poles. More details on spacing as well as a diagram are speciﬁed in the proposed amendment language, as well as a diagram. We believe that the “pole cluster plantings” will do the best possible job of camouﬂaging the poles under the circumstances, taking into account the value of golf course space as well as money to be spent on landscaping. If the poles are exposed to residences within 300 feet on both sides, the landscape screening is also required on both sides of the poles. We are not stipulating that any hedges be provided along the rest of the fence, which will economize on landscaping costs. Individual communities can certainly do more if they wish; the trees speciﬁed are a minimum number and hedging is permissible. With the poles camouﬂaged and the netting as invisible as possible, any damage to the residential neighborhood by an errant ball containment barrier would be minimized. Please see Exhibit R (diagrams of sample barriers designed in accordance with the proposed amendments). Poles 1 In the Hibiscus and Imperial communities, for example, the golf clubs have planted substantial trees along the entire length of the barrier. These mature trees create far better camouﬂage than that offered by Quail Creek’s proposed LDC amendment. 7474 15 There are also choices of powder-coated color if steel or aluminum poles are used. We are specifying a sage green or grayish green to blend in with the trees and other landscaping on the terrain of a golf course. Natural wood poles would not have to be painted. If poles higher than 35 feet are sought through a conditional use, taller trees as well as a bluish gray color (to blend in with the sky) for the pole portions above 35 feet would probably work much better, and this would be possible through the conditional use procedure. ii. The Views in a Golf Residential Community are Crucial to Value and Enjoyment A golf course in a GC District can’t be viewed in a vacuum. It is surrounded by homes. Golf community HOA rules, golf course and real estate sales literature all traditionally reﬂect the value that the views, in particular golf course views, are crucial. Golf course residents bought their homes largely for the view. Views are how homes in golf course communities are marketed, and maintaining those expansive, landscaped views in turn supports the value of those homes. The Quail Creek Estates community, for example, is known and advertised for its golf course views.2 The Quail Creek Estates HOA’s website attests that “The homes are featured on large lots of almost one acre, providing privacy as well as spectacular golf and lake views rarely found in Naples.” Exhibit S (emphasis added). Views of the golf course are commonly acknowledged and restricted as particularly important in the HOA documents. There are severe restrictions on obstructing them. For example: 2 “Quail Creek is a gated community of 291 estate homes located in North Naples. Every home in this 640-acre community has views of the golf course and other scenic natural vistas.” https://www.naplescondoboutique.com/quail-creek/ “Welcome to Quail Creek, a prestigious subdivision located in the heart of Naples, Florida. Nestled within the beautiful Collier County, Quail Creek offers a luxurious lifestyle surrounded by lush landscapes and stunning golf course views.” https://www.captainchrisswﬂhomes.com/listings/subdivision/Quail-Creek/homes-with-golf- course-view/ “One of the standout features of this exclusive neighborhood is the breathtaking golf views that grace many of the homes. Imagine waking up each morning to panoramic vistas of lush fairways and vibrant greens, where the beauty of the outdoors seamlessly integrates with your everyday life. The homes here are designed to maximize these spectacular views, with expansive windows and spacious patios that invite natural course views light and fresh air into your living spaces.” https://www.theguillettegroup.com/listings/subdivision/Quail-Creek/homes-with-golf-course-viw/ “There are no condominiums or villas within Quail Creek, so residents here are seeking a large single-family estate home with views of the 2 magniﬁcent golf courses.. https://www.gulfcoastﬂoridahomes.com/golf-communities/naples-ﬂorida-golf-communities/quail- creek/ 7575 16 No fences, hedges or other obstruction shall be constructed at, or near the boundaries of the Quail Creek Golf Course. At all times, complete visibility of the Quail Creek Golf Course and its appurtenances shall be preserved. Exhibit T, § 8.6 (emphasis added) (Second Amended and Restated Master Declaration of Protective Covenants for Quail Creek). In Quail Creek, there is also an entire separate set of Architectural Planning Criteria that govern how things are supposed to look. Again, golf course views are emphasized and cannot be blocked. No landscaping, hedges, fences, buffers, walls, or other structural screens or other obstruction shall be constructed at, or near the boundaries of the Golf Course, or block another’s view of the golf course. § 2.5 (emphasis added). Exhibit U. Golf course literature (like Quail Creek’s) typically speaks of the “lush, mature trees and carefully curated landscaping, “picturesque grounds,” the “peaceful sanctuary of our natural surroundings,” and the “preservation of natural beauty.” Exhibit V. It trumpets the “harmonious blend of sport and nature”…where our “36 holes of golf are seamlessly woven into the serene tapestry of the . . . grounds”. “golﬁng experience . . .seamlessly blends luxury with nature’s wonders.” See Exhibit V. The value of golf course views has been recognized by the Zoning Division in connection with the golf course conversion amendments. As Mr. Bosi, the Zoning Director, pointed out in his introductory remarks to the new regulations for golf course conversions in 2017, “[t]he [Board of County Commissioners] recognized . . .that golf courses have a unique presence within the built environment. There’s a vested interest, there’s a vested sense of place that is conveyed with a golf course . . ..” See Exhibit W at 126-127 (Transcript of BCC hearing on Ordinance 17-10 at 123 (March 14, 2017) (emphasis added)). Caroline Cilek testiﬁed that during the discussions about golf course conversions that were done in 2016, the Board provided several considerations and a couple of concerns they had about the potential for conversion. See Exhibit W at 124 (including that “the property owners surrounding a golf course purchased their homes with the expectations that they would have a golf course view in perpetuity, and if this view amenity is lost to a conversion project, that there may be a potential loss in property value). See Exhibit W at 124-125 (March 14, 2017) (emphasis added). Ms. Cilek noted that when a conversion is foisted upon residents and they have no input to the process, there can be long running and wasteful litigation. See Exhibit W at 126-127. That is exactly what has happened here, ever since the Quail Creek golf club illegally installed its structure and persisted in ignoring the concerns of the immediate community. 7676 17 Lawyers are profiting from this situation on both sides, and the situation has been extremely stressful for the affected homeowners. iii. GC District Golf Courses Have A Symbiotic Relationship with Their Residential Neighbors There are beneﬁts and burdens to being part of a GC District community, on the sides of both the golf club and the residents. Having obtained substantial beneﬁts from the residential community, including their very existence and a substantial portion of their income, it sits poorly for GC District golf clubs to simply discard residential interests as “inconvenient” and ignore them when expedient, as in the case of an ultrahigh golf barrier. The GC Districts in Collier County are territorially, economically and from a zoning perspective, inextricably intertwined with their neighboring residential communities. When legislating as to the GC District, the adjacent residential land uses must be taken into account. And in addition to the normal compatibility requirement of the GMP that land uses complement each other, the Open Space Zoning Districts provision explicitly requires that recreational uses be “compatible in scale and manner with residential land uses.” LDC § 2.03.09 (A). All of the GC District golf courses in Collier County are located next to residential development. See Exhibit F. Quail Creek, in particular, chose a design and location for its golf courses that is tightly surrounded by homes, presumably to allow it to incorporate two golf courses instead of just one. See Exhibit X. A GC District golf course beneﬁts from a substantial income stream from the monthly fees of local golf and social members, as well as being granted the privilege of running commercial enterprises such as restaurants and event spaces and pro shops, charging for golf and tennis lessons, and obtaining revenue from all of those. Without the GC District, these enterprises would not be permitted to exist in a residential area. Neighboring residents are usually responsible for adhering to an exhaustive set of Community HOA standards, including the stringent requirements that golf course views be preserved at all costs. In Quail Creek Estates, as with other high-end golf communities throughout Collier County, there is an entire set of rules that governs how homes and their lots in Quail Creek Estates should look. See generally Exhibit T at 21-27 (Second Amended and Restated Master Declaration of Protective Covenants for Quail Creek). An architectural review commission is in place to “preserve the beauty, quality and value of the community.” Exhibit T (page 18-21, § 6). These rules and restrictions are part of the recognition that appearances are a vital part of the enjoyment and value of golf course homes. The idea is to keep the community looking beautiful and homogenous, to maintain property values and maximize homeowners’ enjoyment of their properties. This enhances the value of the golf course as well. In turn, residents are supposed to beneﬁt from the expansive golf views provided by the golf club’s playing areas, and some of them take the opportunity to be members and socialize at the golf club. 7777 18 When a golf club needlessly destroys the scenery and thus the value of the residential homes, it is trying to take all the beneﬁts, but ignore the burdens that go along with the GC District. The conditional use process that we support for errant ball containment barriers over 35 feet is crucial in such situations. It would require golf clubs to involve the neighboring homeowners in the development process through the neighborhood information meeting and allow them a much-deserved voice at a public hearing. With the protections of the conditional use procedure, the affected Quail Creek residents could have provided feedback and helped implement a consensual solution. The golf course could have had safety much sooner, and the homeowners would have been content with a barrier that would have been as camouflaged as possible, thus far less damaging to homeowner values. Rather than repeat Quail Creek’s damaging behavior in the rest of Collier County by codifying it, let’s learn from these mistakes by providing design specifications for errant ball containment barriers and allowing for the conditional use process that takes into account the interests of both the golf club and homeowners. The Homeowners’ Opposition to Quail Creek’s LDC Amendment Quail Creek’s proposal to allow up to 70 foot golf barriers “as of right” would create unnecessary damage in Collier County’s attractive network of golf course communities. Property values would fall unnecessarily and wildlife would suffer as well. Such barriers would contravene the spirit of these “open space” districts, making the GC District “open space” only for the lucky residents that don’t have their views completely blocked by these towering, black fences. The giant fences are the height of a ﬁve-to-six story building, markedly disproportionate among typically one-story homes. But the harm doesn’t end there. For the unlucky, they introduce an industrial look reminiscent of smokestacks and prisons. Ultra-high barriers like the one illegally installed at Quail Creek have no public beneﬁt to balance out their negative impacts on other property owners and the community at large. The purpose of that barrier is to prevent errant golf balls from hitting players on a single fairway out of the thirty-six (36) that it operates. Thus, the proposed barrier would protect only people who have already assumed the risk of being present on the golf course. Indeed, the Quail Creek Country Club makes it crystal-clear that only the club members are allowed on any part of the golf courses, the driving range, or Club property at any time. See Exhibit X-1 (“No individual who is not an active member of Quail Creek Country Club is permitted on Club property at any time,” and if they do venture onto Club property they will be prosecuted for trespassing). Residents are told that these boundaries are essential to maintaining the “privacy” of its members. Exhibit X-1. Members’ privacy is the priority; meanwhile, the Club is ﬁne with the possibility of non-members’ homes being forever blocked by a giant black barrier and seriously ﬁnancially impacted as a result. Through its proposed county-wide LDC amendment, the Club thus wishes to impose a huge and widely visible public cost on the its own golf residential community, as well as other golf 7878 19 residential communities in Collier County, solely for the beneﬁt of its own private golf membership. An LDC amendment county-wide, doubling the existing height limit to permit these installations, would cause substantial external obsolescence to estate homes like those owned by the affected residents in Quail Creek. Golf course residents throughout Collier County would be damaged by permitting these extreme fences; homes’ values could needlessly plummet in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Our concerns about damage to property value have already been validated by the sale of an affected home at ﬁfty cents on the dollar. See infra at 22-23. In any event, LDC amendments require compatibility and consistency with the GMP. All LDC amendments undergo a review process to ensure they are consistent with the policies, objectives, and land uses outlined in the Growth Management Plan. LDC § 10.02.09 (A)(1). Also, proposed land uses and developments, including those authorized by LDC amendments, must be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and existing zoning districts. The GMP’s objectives include compatibility of land uses.3 Ultra-High, Factory-Style Barriers Are Not Compatible with Residential Land Uses Our expert planning witness Cecelia Ward found that the variance Quail Creek had originally sought was incompatible with residential uses and inconsistent with the GMP. See her full report at Y at 10-14. The LDC amendment now being requested is no different. Ms. Ward wrote in assessing Quail Creek’s variance application: “Regarding the compatibility of [a] netting structure, generally, uses that deviate significantly in density, intensity, scale, and form or that could negatively impact surrounding land 3 II. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICY’S GOAL: TO GUIDE LAND USE DECISION-MAKING SO AS TO ACHIEVE AND MAINTAIN A HIGH QUALITY NATURAL AND HUMAN ENVIRONMENT WITH A WELL-PLANNED MIX OF COMPATIBLE LAND WHICH PROMOTE THE PUBLIC'S HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE CONSISTENT WITH STATE PLANNING REQUIREMENTS AND LOCAL DESIRES OBJECTIVE 1: Promote well planned land uses consistent with Future Land Use Designations, Districts and Subdistricts and the Future Land Use Map to ensure compatibility between the natural and human environments. OBJECTIVE 5: Implement land use policies that promote sound planning, protect environmentally sensitive lands and habitat for listed species while protecting private property rights, ensure compatibility of land uses and further the implementation of the Future Land Use Element Policy 5.6: New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004, and (XLIV) = Plan Amendment by Ordinance No. 2017-22 on June 13, 2017, 18 Future Land Use as of Ordinance No. 2024- 46, adopted on November 12, 2024, effective October 18, 2024, as amended. 7979 20 uses are deemed incompatible. The County should not support or approve this application unless it provides extraordinary measures to offset identified potential adverse impacts.” Exhibit Y at 10 (emphasis added). Ms. Ward further explained that a variance, like the LDC amendment that Quail Creek proposes, would be inconsistent with the compatibility requirements of the County’s GMP. Exhibit Y at 13. She stated that, “the evidence must assess and establish that the Applicant’s variance request must include an assessment of the proposed golf ball netting system in relation to surrounding residential land uses and make a ﬁnding that it represents a complementary pattern of development. [As with its prior variance application,] The Applicant’s request [for an LDC amendment] does not address this standard at all. “Further, the proposed plan must also identify and include a mitigation strategy to address identiﬁed adverse impacts resulting directly from the requested variance’s location, including a plan to increase landscape screening. “This landscape mitigation must address the need to restore years of tree and vegetative removal and the resulting degradation of the visual and safety barrier between the residences and the golf course orientation of proposed improvements and/or accessory uses. “The adjacent homeowners have identiﬁed substantial adverse visual and economic impacts to their properties resulting from the Applicant’s request, but the Application to-date remains silent on this matter. “At a minimum, the missing evidence must address the proposed system’s [63 feet plus artiﬁcial berm] height in relation to both on-site and adjacent residential structures designed to less than half that height. In addition, the evidence must address the netting’s structural design, and the materials/ﬁnishes used in relation to the adjoining residential properties’ substantial architectural designs and materials.” Exhibit Y at 14 (emphasis added). The starkly prison-like style of Quail Creek’s partially built barrier is plainly at odds with the surrounding properties and even its own clubhouse, as shown in the photographs. (Exhibit A). Few trees grow as high as 70 feet in our area. Certain pines and palms may approach that height after many years, but are spindly and they don’t provide meaningful camouﬂage. At 70 feet, the poles need to be much thicker than at 35 feet to support the overall structure, making the installation look much more industrial. At Quail Creek, for example, 50-inch- circumference, 63-foot poles of shiny black coated steel, largely elevated by an artiﬁcial berm, now thrust themselves in the middle of the previous naturally landscaped view. Trees often need to be removed (and were removed by Quail Creek) before these giant fence installations can be made at all, adding to the environmental carnage. 8080 21 So far, three palm trees of unspeciﬁed type on one side of an installation (canopy trees are optional) of a ﬁnal mature height of 20 feet tall is the only sop the Quail Creek proposed Amendment throws to homeowners, and those trees would be woefully inadequate to camouﬂage a 70-foot golf barrier. See Exhibit R. Making ultra-high golf fences legal may cause knee-jerk reactions and overkill among golf course management, encouraging golf courses to do the easiest thing—put up a big, ugly fence to the detriment of their residential neighbors, violating the spirit as well as the letter of the Golf Course “Open Space” District. This amendment would industrialize the look of golf courses in GC Districts as well as PUD’s throughout the County, ruining their natural, landscaped look by putting prison-like poles and rope-like netting squarely in view. Such high fences would be visible from other neighbors’ homes and the roadways as well, cheapening the overall look of residential communities throughout the County. The industrial appearance will therefore damage the value of the nearby homes, not just the directly affected. Also, the market value of directly affected homes will suffer dramatically, and the ensuing uncertainty is likely to affect prices in residential golf courses County-wide. The reliability and therefore marketability of Collier County golf course communities in GC Districts and PUDs alike, as a place to purchase homes will be thrown into question. Quail Creek Sets An Example for this County to Avoid The illegally installed barrier poles at the Quail Creek Country Club, intended to be 68-70 feet tall by incorporating the added height of an artiﬁcial berm, is an excellent example of the harm that ultra-high golf barriers would cause in Collier County. The conditional use process, before any golf course applies for a golf barrier permit and begins construction of an ultra-high barrier, would avoid this situation. Back in 1981, the original Quail Creek golf course was designed with a tree barrier between Hole 10 and the driving range to assure golfer safety. Exhibit Z. When we bought our homes, the tree barrier was robust and beautiful. Exhibit AA. The driving range and the fairway next to it operated without incident for many years. But from 2013-2020, Quail Creek systematically removed its own tree safety barrier. See Exhibit BB. In 2018, the Club erected an artificial berm with a row of short, branchless palms, and an unpermitted 12 foot tall netting fence attached to palm trees which it utterly failed to maintain. See Exhibit CC. What had been a functional and attractive barrier was gone. As our golf expert states, “The golf course affirmatively created the danger to players playing the 10th hole with the removal of these barrier trees.” Exhibit E at 6. “Leaving those trees in place would have continued to provide a meaningful and effective buffer between the driving range and the 10th hole.” Exhibit E at 6. Other local courses with driving ranges manage quite well with tree barriers next to their driving ranges. See Exhibit Z-1. 8181 22 The Club installed a new driving range, also without a permit, both next to Hole 10 and behind the homes of two of the residents on Coco Plum Lane, placing them in danger. “This puts the Coco Plum Lane properties squarely in the crosshairs of the Zone of Danger, necessitating elimination of the back tee box area completely.” Exhibit E at 13. It also expanded its driving range towards Hole 10 by adding a short-range hitting area. These actions raised the danger level for Hole 10 golfers. To our knowledge, all of these changes were made without permits. This was continually negligent behavior, just waiting for something to go wrong. See Exhibit E at 6-8 (explaining how the various changes to the original design of the Club’s driving range enhanced the dangers). After an accident occurred in 2023, it apparently became a priority of the Club to get a manmade barrier. But no trajectory analysis was undertaken to determine what size barrier was actually needed. See Exhibit DD at 1 (“Engel & Company Engineers, Inc. were not contracted to provide a trajectory (ball containment)). In late April of 2024, and without even consulting with the County to get a permit, the Club began installing its barrier. An unlicensed contractor placed enormous black poles in the ground intended to support an 850 foot long, 63-foot high black netting barrier. Thus, the Club literally went from zero to sixty overnight. They went from going without any protection for Hole 10 golfers for several years due to their tree removal and failure to maintain their own netting fence, to allegedly needing every inch of 63-foot tall fence. The Club did not consult with or inform the nearby residents, did it provide any notice at all. The affected residents tried to contact the golf club right away, to register our concern and dismay. But the Club refused to take our calls or return our emails. The Club was stopped only by Code Enforcement, on May 1, 2024. In a meeting on May 8th, which we were told was set up to hear the concerns of the homeowners, the Club refused to have a constructive dialogue with the affected residents. Instead, it began the meeting by telling us that the poles would stay up “no matter what.” This arrogant attitude persists today, as the Club would rather try to amend the LDC County-wide (and ﬁle complaints against its fellow golf courses into the bargain), than engage in mediation of this controversy with the affected parties. It has been made crystal-clear that our legitimate concerns didn’t matter to the Club, despite its central position in our community. That the Club is unnecessarily harming the affected homeowners, with maximal cost to the community and the natural environment and minimal forethought, didn’t seem to bother them, then or now. Club representatives did admit to some of the affected homeowners (only three families were permitted to attend) at the May 8 meeting that even they were taken aback by the visual appearance of these poles. This is an important admission—they didn’t bother to do adequate research before they installed these horriﬁc poles in full view of our homes. The Club has studiously ignored the objections of the affected homeowners ever since, pretending that property values would not be affected. Many, many months of delay have 8282 23 ensued as Quail Creek tried to figure out a way to push through its illegal barrier without giving homeowners a chance to be heard. (Almost two years, or 704 days, have now passed since the barrier poles were illegally installed). These attempts have included a variance proceeding that they later abandoned, a request for an official interpretation of the height restrictions, and now an LDC amendment. The Quail Creek Barrier Has Caused Signiﬁcant Financial Damage to the Affected Homeowners During all of this time, homeowners have had to live with an illegally constructed, enormous, industrial-style barrier that is having a substantial negative effect on property values. The market value damage to our homes is apparent already. Since the illegal barrier has been left standing for 20 months, one homeowner on Coco Plum Lane was forced to sell during that period of time, and catastrophically received only 50 cents on the dollar of their initial home price. The final price was $1.25 million on a home initially marketed with a list price of $2.5 million. That price was set by an experienced realtor in the area before the illegal pole installation. We attach the Zillow listing showing how the price was marked further and further down over time, as buyers kept walking away from the ruined view. Exhibit EE. Meanwhile, an unaffected property just one house away sold in a couple of months for 94% of list price. Exhibit FF. We have personally spoken with several real estate agents, who have all confirmed the potential for a substantial decrease in property values for those of us whose views are now obstructed. Originally this was in the $500,000 to $700,000 range. But the sale that has actually occurred reﬂects that that amount of damage may be a serious understatement. Another affected home is currently on the market, its owners needing to sell to fund the cost of their move to a senior living facility. It was placed on the market in November of 2025, and was forced to lower its asking price, twice, by a total of $500,000. Exhibit GG. A realtor photo shows that the home will have a full view of the proposed Quail Creek barrier. Exhibit GG at 3. The home is now under contract for 72% of the original list price. The sellers had hoped to realize much more on the sale of their home, in the range of 92% of the list price. When they tried to negotiate upward the offer that they had received, the buyers refused, citing the black steel poles marring the view behind the house. These homeowners estimate that the presence of the illegal poles forced them to lose $500,000 on the sale price of their house. Meanwhile, the Quail Creek Club demonstrates the needlessness of their “overkill” fence every day by having children stand right next to the poles located farthest from the clubhouse. Exhibit HH. If there were a substantial danger hundreds of yards away from the tee that somehow required a 70 foot fence, children should not be standing there. As Mr. Groch states in his report, hitting a ball in that area is mathematically impossible. Exhibit D at 7. “While we conservatively estimate that 1% of the golfing population at Quail Creek can hit the ball 250 yards, it should be noted that the proposed 60-foot barrier spans a distance of 8383 24 325 yards from the tee. This is well beyond the point where it is a mathematical impossibility for balls to reach that height at the barrier location. The Club has placed a driving range for younger golfers at the 325-yard distance, so that unprotected children are standing to hit their own practice shots right next to a barrier intended to be 60 feet high-- showing the gross inconsistencies in the Club’s approach to safety.” Exhibit D at 7 (emphasis added). And—despite its “safety concerns,” the Club has kept right on using its driving range, and the fairway for golf hole #10 right next to it exactly as before, with no restrictions. Indeed, the Club has recently shown in plans submitted with an SDPI for a golf course renovation that it wants to expand its driving range tee box area a full 50 yards toward Hole 10. This would signiﬁcantly add to the danger to golfers using that area of the golf course, as Professor Groch explains. See Exhibit II. That this would be planned--notwithstanding the controversy and the serious concerns raised by the adjacent residents over the proposed driving range barrier--reﬂects the attitude of Quail Creek Country Club’s management. Wildlife Will be Harmed Finally, the natural community of local animals will be damaged as well. With a skyscraper fence in place, and the beautiful trees all gone, previously attractive driving range areas will become a giant cage to fence out and divide the animals. Birds will get caught in it. Our local chapter of the Audubon Society has already written to the Board of County Commissioners to oppose Quail Creek’s proposed barrier. Please see the attached letter dated November 22, 2024 (Exhibit JJ at 2) (attaching a list of the many species that have been identiﬁed on the Quail Creek golf courses). “A barrier of this enormous size and type is a terrible obstacle to wildlife. The requested barrier would greatly interfere with the numerous wildlife species— birds, mammals and amphibians—which reside in and around the area of the two golf courses (listing the many different species which have been observed using the Quail Creek golf courses and community as habitat). “ “Sandhill cranes and wood storks, for example, are threatened species in Florida and are observed at Quail Creek. Birds would ﬂy into and be caught in this net. Other animals would be confused about their habitat areas and blocked from their normal paths. The net will impede migration of birds as well.” Exhibit JJ at 1 (emphasis added). The Club’s own website points out that diverse ﬂora and fauna such as birds and fox squirrels, make this area their home. (https://www.quailcreekcc.com/golf ); Exhibit V at 2. Netting is dangerous to animals. 8484 25 Netting, often used for various purposes such as fishing, sports, or gardening, has become a serious threat to wildlife. While nets serve many human needs, their consequences on the environment and animal life are often overlooked. One of the primary dangers associated with netting is the entanglement of wildlife. Birds, mammals, and marine life can easily become ensnared in discarded or improperly managed nets. Hundreds of thousands of animals, both marine and on land, die from being trapped in netting each year. Net entanglement leads to injuries, restricted movement, and, in severe cases, fatalities. The animals that struggle to free themselves can be found with severe wounds and stress, affecting their overall health and well-being. Birds, especially, are highly susceptible to the perils of netting. Loose or abandoned fishing nets can pose a significant threat to waterfowl and seabirds. These animals may mistake the netting for nesting material, leading to entanglement or, in the case of seabirds, ingestion. Ingested netting can cause internal injuries, impacting their digestive systems and often proving fatal. Netting used in gardening or construction can trap small mammals, reptiles, and even insects. This poses a threat to the delicate balance of ecosystems, potentially disrupting food chains and biodiversity. Netting is Dangerous to Wildlife, Wildlife Rescue League https://www.wildliferescueleague.org/animals/netting-is-dangerous-to-wildlife/ (emphasis added, in part). ****** For all of the foregoing reasons, we respectfully request that the Board of County Commissioners reject Quail Creek’s proposal and adopt the Homeowners’ proposed LDC Amendment instead. Respectfully submitted, Letitia and Frank Accarrino 13057 Coco Plum Lane Naples, FL 34119 Chad and Natasha Commers 13156 Valewood Drive Naples, FL 34119 Goldie and Kenneth Wetcher 13024 Valewood Drive Naples, FL 34119 8585 26 Dana and Michael Sturdevant 13033 Coco Plum Lane Naples, FL 34119 Mariam Mars Gulistan and Lucille Wetlaufer 13002 Valewood Drive Naples, FL 34119 Fahmida Rahman 13056 Valewood Drive Naples, FL 34119 8686 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 87 QUAIL CREEK HOMEOWNER STATEMENTS FILED IN CODE ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS Attachment 3: Homeowner Statements 88 CODE ENFORCEMENT-SPECIAL MAGISTRATE COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Petitioner, vs. Case No.: CESD20240003998 QUAIL CREEK COUNTRY CLUB, INC., Respondent. _____________________________________/ DECLARATION OF BECKY HUNDLEY I send this email with an emotion that can't be conveyed in typed words - but I have not had the opportunity to be heard any other way. The legal counsel for Quail Creek Country Club (GOLIATH) has made sure that we (DAVID) have been silenced because they know they are in the wrong. I implore you to read this in full and encourage all involved in making the decision to use empathy. You are holding the stones we need to stop GOLIATH. PHYSICAL HARM: Their choices in modifying the golf course over the years CREATED this problem. They've taken down trees to create a 2nd driving range directly behind our home. Before this modification I rarely had balls in my yard. After their remodel there were balls all over my yard, in my pool, and I've had to replace two windshields. One of my guests came inches away from getting hit. I rarely use my pool anymore because it is like playing Russian roulette. The golf club has claimed things that are just patently untrue. The barriers don't protect homeowners. In fact the opposite is true. Their choices over the past several years have harmed us physically, emotionally, and financially. EMOTIONAL HARM: As you can imagine, I lost a ton of sleep over this. All of the hard work and financial investment of remodeling my home was GONE. 8989 I bought the home for the view, and the view no longer existed: The lanai used to be my happy place. I'd sit out there and drink my coffee in the mornings and enjoy the most exquisite sunsets in the evenings. 9090 My backyard became the source of anxiety, angst, and frustration. 9191 I was stuck inside - in a home I ended up selling for pennies on the dollar which brings me to my final point: FINANCIAL HARM: In April 2024 the realtor who sells the majority of the homes in Quail Creek (Tiaany McQuaid) set the price of my home to list at 2.5 million dollars. Two days later during the first open house potential buyers were questioning the 70ft long black poles laying on the ground behind my home. I assumed they were utility poles that would be installed underground. When the poles started getting erected "Top Golf"- style during the week that followed I was absolutely sick. Several of us set up a meeting with the golf club. The only one who seemed like they were actually listening (Managing Director Michael McDonald) visited our houses and promised to plant some trees to mitigate the damage. He was promptly fired. I was forced to purchase four mature trees at my own expense (almost $10,000) to try to block the view of the poles. But they also blocked one of my home’s main selling point: The view that I paid for and had hoped to recoup when I sold. Tiaany’s realty team suggested the asking price be lowered to just under 2 million. With my stomach in my throat, I reluctantly agreed. Unsuccessful even at the lowered price, we removed the house from the market months later. When we put it back on the market at 1.825 million, then lowered it to 1.7, then again to 1.5, to say I was exasperated with QC Golf & Country Club was an understatement. Many buyers walked away from the property, citing the view from the backyard. I finally sold my home on September 26, 2025 for 1.25 million... HALF of what the realtor originally listed it for. My house sale is proof of the financial harm the Quail Creek Golf Club’s knee-jerk reaction has caused to the homeowners surrounding the driving range. You can’t help me. The damage is done. But you can save the rest of the homeowners from the same fate by making QCGC remove that ill-designed eyesore that DOES NOT BELONG IN THE CENTER OF MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR HOMES. QCGC’s greed and ignorance created the problem. Instead of admitting their mistakes and restoring the course to its' original design and landscaping, they erected these TOP GOLF-like poles in our back yards. Forcing us to pay for their mistakes to avoid taking responsibility for them. These poles were erected illegally - ignoring the city's height limitations, by an unlicensed contractor, and without a permit. These poles were erected with no regard to who would be aaected, and no attempt to communicate or mitigate the damage they caused. These poles were erected incongruent to the tone of the area. If you allow the nets to go up on these poles (which is the plan), it would be akin to the zoning department allowing a gas station to erect a neon sign advertising gas prices in the middle of a neighborhood with multi-million-dollar homes. 9292 The Golf Club has alternatives that would protect the golfers on hole 10 without damaging the surrounding homes and homeowners, but those alternatives would require THEM to pay for their own bad decisions. They've decided to make US pay instead… and I did pay. I paid over a million dollars. You have the power to stop this travesty. PLEASE STOP THEM. For the sake of my friends and neighbors – I BEG YOU to stop them before they suaer the same devastating loss I did. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Naples, Florida, October 21, 2025. __________________________________ BECKY HUNDLEY 9393 October 21, 2025 Dear Special Magistrate Neale, Our family lives at 13156 Valewood Dr, which abuts the Quail Creek driving range and hole #10. In 2017 when we purchased our home, the landscape view from our windows, lanai and backyard was like looking into a park, with barrier trees that lined the area between one of the Club’s 36 holes of golf (Creek Hole #10) and the driving range. We went further and built an addition to our home, a significant additional investment which together with our home represents a very significant portion of our savings. During the past decade or so, we renovated our landscaping, and made various improvements, investing several hundred thousand dollars. The appeal of this lot was the rear yard, where we enjoyed natural, unobstructed green views from the rear of our home, both inside and out. But now, our view, and the value of our home, has been spoiled by overbearing, towering black metal poles more fitting in an industrial setting than a family neighborhood of homes near a golf course. The 63-foot set of poles that have been installed has changed the character of the Quail Creek residential community as a whole, diminishing property values and retirement savings. Until now, Quail Creek had carefully cultivated a beautiful, evergreen residential character. Surrounding homes are at most 21 feet in height, most in the 17 foot range. The 63 foot poles are a highly visible and unattractive new landmark, widely seen throughout the surrounding area. A 63 -foot (70 feet with the berm) black braided golf net fits in a commercial zone like Top Golf or a more industrial environment. It does not belong in a quiet residential community that strives for a natural appearance and welcomes wildlife, and its presence is injurious to the other properties in the area. The installed poles are factory and prison-like in appearance. The structure towers over the treeline, taking away our entire view of trees, sky and nature and fills it with giant black poles, intended to be followed by black netting which will add to the industrial yard appearance. While neighboring homes are about 17 feet in height, this structure towers 70 feet high with the added height of the berm. We see these giant poles towering over the homes when we drive up the street on Valewood and Butterfly Orchid. We see them from our bedrooms, dining room, and living room. It completely fills up the view from the bedroom in the addition we built only a few years ago. We see them from the window when we are in our kitchen. We see them from our master bedroom. When we go to the backyard or lanai, the industrial view dominates our entire field of vision. Even with the trees that are planted in our yard, nothing is tall enough to cover them up, and that is without the ugly black netting that is planned. It is as if we now live on the grounds of a defunct minor league baseball facility. The unpermitted black poles rise into the sky far above the natural surroundings; in no way keeping with the character of the neighborhood. The ugliness and contrast with the natural landscape is hard to even visualize unless you have seen it in person. Club representatives said that they were unaware it would look like this by the visual appearance of these poles, and this was before the intended black curtain of netting. 9494 Our investment in our home is now worth substantially less due to these enormous black metal poles. What was once a sense of pride in our home, is now a question of “what are those?” when we invite friends or family over and they see the poles that dominate the view. We would never buy our own home now, with an enormous factory-like structure dominating the view. Given the recent addition of another child to our family, my wife would like to sell our house and find somewhere with a better layout for a young family. Unfortunately, we have been advised by a realtor that our price would be reduced by at least $700,000 by the view of the fence, wiping out the investment we made in the addition to our home. Considering what has happened with the Hundleys’ home, that seems to be a serious underestimate. The only reason any buyer would consider our homes now is if they could get a really low price. Obviously, that will be to the serious financial damage of all of us affected homeowners. The Club takes the position that the fence won’t affect our property values. This is simply not accurate. Anyone who takes one look at the situation will realize that a major portion of the value of our homes has been instantaneously destroyed by this barrier. The Hundleys have already been damaged, by many hundreds of thousands of dollars, and the rest of us will suffer similarly. It is time for the golf club to be fined for erecting and maintaining an unpermitted, unlawful fence that does not even comply with its own permit plans. We also respectfully request that you order the removal of the offending structure. Please allow us to enjoy living in our homes once more and to be able to market our homes again, if necessary, with this illegal structure removed from the view. Below are photos of the current views from our home. The poles tower over the neighborhood and dwarf any neighboring trees. If the Club is forced to remove its unlawful barrier and rebuilds at 35 feet or less, trees could be planted around each pole to hide it and the Club could use netting that is much less visible and more in keeping with the neighborhood. Respectfully submitted, Chad and Natasha Commers 13156 Valewood Dr. Naples, FL 34119 9595 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 Dear Special Magistrate Neale, My husband Frank Accarrino and I live at 13057 Coco Plum Lane, which abuts the Quail Creek driving range. We bought our home in 2014. When we purchased our home, the landscape view from our windows, lanai and backyard was one of greenery and barrier trees that guarded the area between one of the Club’s 36 holes of golf (Creek Hole #10) and the driving range. Our home is by far our biggest investment and represents a very important part of our retirement savings. During the past decade or so, we renovated our home and made various improvements at a cost of several hundred thousand dollars. We are also gardeners and have added many landscape plants to beautify our environment. We enjoyed natural, green views from our home, both inside and out. But now, our view and the value of our home has been spoiled by enormous, towering black poles more fitting in an industrial setting than a neighborhood of residences near a golf course. The 63-foot set of poles that have been installed changes the character of the Quail Creek residential community as a whole, diluting property values more widely. Quail Creek has carefully cultivated a beautiful, evergreen residential character. Surrounding homes are at most 21 feet in height, most in the 17 foot range. The 63 foot poles are a highly visible and unattractive new landmark, widely seen throughout the surrounding area. A 63 -foot (70 feet with the berm) golf net fits in a commercial zone like Top Golf or a more industrial environment. It does not belong in a quiet residential community that strives for a natural appearance and welcomes wildlife, and its presence is injurious to the other properties in the vicinity. History During the period from 2013-2020, the Club removed the safety barrier of trees between Hole 10 and the driving range that had been in place since the golf course was created. In April of 2024, we first noticed giant black poles being erected on the golf course behind our home. This was done without a permit and with an unlicensed contractor. We learned that the poles were intended for an enormous black golf barrier that would completely block our view from our home, backyard and lanai and replace it with a giant black curtain. We tried to get in touch with the golf club to find out what was going on. They didn’t respond to our emails or phone calls. Finally, we had a meeting with some golf club members to express our concerns about the planned fence. We were one of only three affected families were permitted to attend this meeting. At the outset of the meeting, we were told that the poles were staying up “no matter what.” It was clear that our objections didn’t matter to the Club, although we tried to explain our concerns with the industrial look and size of the planned fence and that we were very worried about the probable impact to the market value of our homes. We left the meeting knowing that, with the Club’s complete disregard for our concerns, that we would have to defend ourselves against this awful structure with legal counsel. This has led to the hiring of additional experts and planners along the way. Currently, our family alone has spent in the tens of thousands of dollars on this matter, with more to come, and hundreds of hours on this endeavor, while, for its part, the Club has been evasive and caused many months of delay. The delay has included filing 117117 a variance application that it apparently never intended to pursue. Meanwhile, we spent thousands on hiring experts and drafting legal documents in response to the variance application. The Zoning Division has denied the Club permission to build their 63-foot fence three separate times, yet this structure is still standing. Eighteen months later, we are still looking at this unlawful, unpermitted barrier. We simply can’t understand how the Club, which built it without a permit and with an unlicensed contractor can be allowed to keep its unlawful, illegally built structure month after month and see if it can somehow get a permit, while we are forced to live with this ugliness on a daily basis. In any event, the structure doesn’t comply with the plans the Club filed with the County, so it is unsafe for the neighboring homes as well. The Appearance of the Unpermitted Structure The installed poles are factory and prison-like in appearance. The structure cuts away our entire view of grass, sky and houses and fills it with giant black poles, intended to be followed by black netting. While neighboring homes are about 17 feet in height, this structure towers 70 feet high with the added height of the berm. We see these giant poles towering over the homes when we drive up the street on Valewood and Butterfly Orchid. We see them next to the homes on Coco Plum Lane. We see them from our dining room and living room. It completely fills up the view from my daughter’s bedroom window. We see them from the window when we are in our kitchen. We see them from our master bedroom. When we go to the backyard or lanai, the industrial view dominates our entire field of vision. Even with the trees that are planted in our yard, nothing is tall enough to cover them up, and that is without the ugly black netting that is planned. It is as if we now live on the grounds of an industrial factory. When I go into the backyard to garden my blood pressure rises just looking at it. The ugliness and contrast with the natural landscape is hard to even visualize unless you have seen it in person. Club representatives said to our clients at the May meeting that even they were taken aback by the visual appearance of these poles, and this was before the intended black curtain of netting. We are embarrassed now to invite friends or family over to show them that this is where we live. The golfers themselves spend maybe an hour at most on the driving range area or Hole 10. Some of the country club members see a pole or two from the gym area (where the Club has actually installed much lower poles). In any event, they have their homes to go to in unaffected areas in Quail Creek or elsewhere. But we homeowners have nowhere else to go! We are parked by this ghastly blight 24 hours a day, possibly forever, since the marketability of our homes is now gravely threatened. The Club created its own “safety” problem and permit issues The “dangerous situation” here was created entirely by the Club’s own actions. In addition to getting rid of the barrier tree border, they’ve installed two new hitting areas, and no longer use 118118 self-limiting balls. There are many simpler and less expensive options available to the Club other than this disastrous fence. In consulting with golf experts, we have learned that the Club could get 100% safety with a much lower, 30 foot fence. Among other remedies, they could go back to using self-limiting balls; replace the trees that they have removed; install a much shorter fence, closer to the tee off area, where they can angle it to cut off stray balls before they reach maximum height; or shorten, re-design, or relocate Hole 10 or the driving range somewhere else on its vast 183 acre acreage. Any of these remedies would avoid excessive damage to homeowners while solving the “safety” problem created by the Club’s removal of the trees. The Club also chose to spend its money building an unpermitted structure that does not comply with County restrictions. The Club would like an infinite amount of time to fish around some more and see if it can somehow overcome the 35 foot golf course height limitation. It seeks to place the entire burden for its poor golf course management over the years, and the fact that it didn’t bother to seek a permit, on us. The structure has no public benefit to balance out its negative impacts on other property owners and the community at large. The purpose of the structure is to prevent errant balls from posing a risk of hitting Hole 10 golfers. Thus, the proposed structure would protect only people who have already assumed the risk of being present on the golf course. Indeed, only the subset of Quail Creek club members who have golf memberships and their golfing guests are allowed on the course when the driving range is open. The Club thus proposes to impose a huge and widely visible public cost solely for the benefit of its golf membership. Market value of our homes is destroyed We’ve had to watch as my next door neighbors, the Hundleys, have struggled to market their home over almost the entire time the poles have been standing. The price, set by a seasoned realtor who specializes in selling homes in the Quail Creek community, Tiffany McQuaid, started at $2.5 million, just before the poles went up. The Hundleys had to take it on and off the market several times and finally had to settle for a price of exactly half what they had originally sought. Needing to sell as soon as possible, they simply could not wait while the Club has delayed matters over many, many months. The Club takes the position that the fence won’t affect our property values. This is simply ridiculous. Anyone who takes one look at the situation will realize that a major portion of the value of our homes has been instantaneously destroyed by this barrier. We would never buy our own home now, with an enormous factory-like structure dominating the view. We have been advised by a realtor that my price would be reduced by at least $500,000 by the view of the fence. But based on what has happened with the Hundleys’ home, that seems to be a serious underestimate. The only reason any buyer would consider our homes now is if they could get a really low price. Obviously, that will be to the serious financial damage of all of us affected homeowners. 119119 120 121 122 123 124124 125125 126 127 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 128 Exhibit A Attachment 4: Exhibits A - C 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 Exhibit A-1 177177 178 179 Exhibit B 180180 181 182 Exhibit C 183183 184 185 186 187 188 189 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 190 Attachment 5: Exhibits D, D-1 and E-Golf Expert Reports Exhibit D 191 Flight Simulation and Containment Analysis: Quail Creek Driving Range Professor JM Groch, PGA, MPS 3/31/26 192192 1 Flight Simulation and Containment Analysis: Quail Creek Driving Range Introduction This report presents a scientific evaluation of the proposed 60-foot containment net at Quail Creek Country Club's driving range. The key objective is to assess whether the proposed netting configuration provides meaningful or necessary safety protection for players—specifically, those on Hole 10—while considering both performance and aesthetic impact. The data and conclusions herein focus on the adequacy and necessity of the current design and whether alternative strategies may provide equal or improved safety with less visual intrusion. Through rigorous modeling of golf ball trajectories, probabilistic simulations, demographics, and net interception analysis, this report identifies significant concerns regarding the proposed design. The goal is to ensure that any containment strategy meaningfully mitigates risk while aligning with best practices in range safety design. Finally, a more effective containment strategy, minimal in cost and visual impact, is proposed. Overview For many years, Quail Creek Country Club operated its driving range facility with a natural tree barrier between the driving range and hole number 10. We estimate that this original barrier was about 30 feet high. Quail Creek now proposes a 60-foot barrier.1 This report evaluates the effectiveness of the original tree barrier, the proposed 60-foot barrier, and a solution incorporating a new 35-foot barrier with minimal alterations to the driving range teeing area. A 35-foot barrier can consist of mature trees and hedgerows, with bush layering, or be constructed, in which case foliage and vegetation can be placed for camouflage. The 35-foot net with an arc-tee configuration provides superior aesthetics and safe containment with 40% less visual impact than a 60-foot straight-tee system. Incorporating vegetation buffers and standard operational controls, the design achieves 99.9962% containment, meeting or exceeding industry standards. Methodology: Determining the netting height for a net that runs parallel to the driving range (often called a side net) requires a different approach than the backstop net. The primary objective is to catch errant 1 At the time this report was written, Quail Creek was stating that its golf barrier was 60 feet high. Since that time, they have corrected that figure to 63 feet, but 60 feet is what we analyzed. In addition, three of the installed poles are well below 63 feet, at 20 and 40 feet. 193193 2 shots (hooks, slices, shanks) that veer significantly off the intended line, not well-struck straight drives. Key Factors to Consider 1. Maximum Shot Dispersion Angle Errant shots can leave the clubface at significant angles. Common estimates: • Average slice/hook: 10–25° off center • Extreme mis-hits: 30–40° (more for beginners or kids) We will use 30° as an extremely conservative maximum deflection angle for the adults using the Quail Creek driving range. 2. Distance From Tee Line to Net Let’s call this D_side (horizontal distance in yards/feet from the hitting bay to the side net). 3. Expected Carry Distance Use the max carry of the longest club (usually a driver), denoted as D_carry. For most amateurs: 250 yards. This is an extremely conservative assumption because for the demographic group using the range, only 1% can hit it that far. 4. Calculate Maximum Lateral Deflection Use trigonometry to find the furthest sideways the ball might travel: Lateral distance = D_carry × tan(θ) Where θ is the shot dispersion angle (e.g., 30° → tan(30°) ≈ 0.577) Then calculate how high the ball will be when it’s at D_side from the teeing area. Sample Calculation Scenario: • Max carry distance, or D_carry: 250 yards • Side net is 75 yards from the tee center line • Shot deflection angle: 30° • Ball apex height (estimated): 90 ft 194194 3 Step 1: Find the maximum lateral deflection point for a 250-yard shot: Lateral = 250 × tan (30°) ≈ 250 × 0.577 ≈ 144.25 yards So, the furthest the ball might travel is ~144 yards from centerline Step 2: Interception point at 75 Yards Lateral The net is 75 yards to the right (laterally). To find where the ball crosses 75 yards laterally, we must determine: Downrange distance=75/tan(30∘)≈129.9 yards So, the interception point is 129.9 yards out. Step 3: Calculate the height of the ball at 129.9 yards downrange at 75 yards lateral For a 250-yard shot at a 30° angle with a 90 ft apex: • The ball crosses the 75-yard lateral fence at a downrange distance of ≈ 129.9 yards • At that point, the ball is ≈ 88 feet high Calculation: Conclusion Not even a 60-foot-high net would capture this type of shot. 195195 4 Probabilistic Modeling Now we can add probabilistic modeling, which is useful for understanding risk at different points along a side net. It combines trajectory physics with shot dispersion data for all golfing populations to estimate the probability of a ball going over the net at any given location along its length. Specifically, the purpose is to evaluate the risks associated with the original, natural roughly 30-foot barrier and to provide a solution that addresses both safety and aesthetic concerns. Step-by-Step Overview 1. Define Your Coordinate System • Place the tee at (0, 0). • The x-axis represents the distance a ball travels down the fairway. • The y-axis runs sideways, perpendicular to the target line (left/right). (The target line is an imaginary line extending from the golf ball to its intended target, used for aiming during a shot). • The z-axis is height. 196196 5 So, a golf ball trajectory becomes a function: (x, y, z) = f(time) — we’ll simplify this into 2D slices to start. 2. Collect or Model Shot Dispersion Data We need a distribution of shot angles (e.g., how often shots go 0°, 10°, 20°, 30° off target). This can come from: • Launch monitor data (TrackMan, Flightscope) • General data (e.g., the average amateur hits 70% of their drives within a 15 degree angle to the left or right) • Model shot dispersion as a probability density function (PDF) — commonly a normal distribution, centered at 0° (straight shot). Specifically, when a golfer hits a series of shots, the balls don’t all go perfectly straight. Instead, they scatter left or right of the intended line, creating a spread pattern. This left/right spread is known as angular dispersion, typically measured in degrees from center (0°). 3. Calculate Trajectories at Sample Angles For each angle (θ), calculate: • Lateral offset (y) = distance × tan(θ) • Height (z) at that point = use the trajectory model (parabolic, or measured) • The “lateral offset” is the distance the ball travels from the point it is hit by the golfer until it intercepts a the fixed line of the barrier. You then ask: "At this lateral offset and height, would this shot clear the net?" 4. Define the Net Profile At each point along the net, you’ll define: • Distance from tee (x) • Height of the net (z_net) • Y-location of the net (y_net) = distance from centerline of the tee box (e.g., 75 yards right means 75 yards to the right of the tee box’s center)). This value is fixed. 5. Compare Trajectory to Net Height For each shot angle θ: 197197 6 • Calculate x, y, and z of the ball at the point where it crosses the y position of the net. • If z > z_net at that point, the shot clears the net. We now know how golf shots would have to be angled to clear the net at that location. 6. Estimate Probability of Clearance Once you know which shot angles can clear the net at a given location: • Use the PDF of shot dispersion to estimate the area under the curve beyond that angle. • That area = probability of net clearance at that net point. Add Demographics By adding demographic information (see below) to the above processes (using flight arc modeling, probabilistic dispersion, and lateral clearance analytics) produces a model that that scientifically predicts the probability of “defects” (balls crossing the net). Add: Population Demographic, Ball Flight Probability and Other Adjustments: Probability of Rightward Miss by Player Type Max 250 Senior 10 Hdc 205 Senior 20 Hdc 185 Senior 30 Hdc 160 <160 Offline Angle Max 250 yds 205 yds 185 yds 160 yds <160 yds 10° 0.1 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 20° 0.03 0.1 0.15 0.18 0.25 30° 0.006 0.03 0.1 0.5 0.2 198198 7 Probability Distribution Club Demographics 0.01 0.19 0.4 0.32 0.08 Max 250 Senior 10 Hdc 205 Senior 20 Hdc 185 Senior 30 Hdc 160 <160 Adjustments Population 70% Male Driver Only While we conservatively estimate that 1% of the golfing population at Quail Creek can hit the ball 250 yards, it should be noted that the proposed 60-foot barrier spans a distance of 325 yards from the tee. This is well beyond the point where it is a mathematical impossibility for balls to reach that height at the barrier location. The Club has placed a driving range for younger golfers at the 325-yard distance, so that unprotected children are standing to hit their own practice shots right next to a barrier intended to be 60 feet high--showing the gross inconsistencies in the Club’s approach to safety. Please see photos immediately below. 199199 8 200200 9 Flight Simulation and Containment Analysis w/Side spin Quail Creek Driving Range – Arc Tee + 35 ft Net Configuration Simulation Type: Probabilistic (Monte Carlo – 500,000 shots) 1. Overview This report evaluates the containment effectiveness of a 35 ft perimeter net in conjunction with a 16° arc tee configuration, representing a 75-yard offset from the tee centerline under Quail Creek demographic conditions. Monte Carlo simulation results quantify the probability of golf balls exceeding the net boundary under realistic dispersion and shot-pattern parameters. 2. Simulation Parameters Parameter Specification Tee configuration 16° arc Max outward azimuth ±15° Dispersion (σ) 8.5° Ball speed 150 ± 12 mph Side spin ±3500 rpm (max) Carry distribution 215 yd mean (250 yd = 95th percentile) Apex height 85 ft mean (100 ft max) Net sag/deflection +5 ft → Effective capture height = 40 ft 3. Containment Results Net Height Probability Ball Clears Net Balls Over Net (per year)* Containment Rate 35 ft 0.0038 % ≈46 balls 99.9962 % *Based on 1.2 million range shots annually. 4. Shot Severity Breakdown Shot Type % of Shots Clears 35 ft Net? Height at Net Crossing 201201 10 Normal (≤8°) 68 % No < 20 ft Moderate (8–12°) 27 % No 20–30 ft Severe (12–15°) 4.9 % Occasionally 30–40 ft Extreme (>15°) 0.1 % 1 in 260 40–44 ft Only ~1 in 26,000 total shots exceeds 40 ft at the net line. 5. Containment Comparison (Arc Tee Configuration) Net Height Probability Over Net Balls/Year (Hole 10 Exposure) Containment 60 ft 0.00040 % ~5 99.9996 % 50 ft 0.00110 % ~13 99.9989 % 40 ft 0.00110 % ~13 99.9989 % 35 ft 0.00380 % ~46 99.9962 % 6. Risk Assessment Risk Metric Value / Interpretation Airborne balls onto Hole 10 ~46/year (mostly low-energy, descending trajectory) Ground rollers (under net) ~120–150/year (manageable with signage/buffer) Player safety risk Low – comparable to on-course errant approach shots Liability exposure Moderate – within industry norms with proper SOPs 7. Final Verdict Arc Tee + 35 ft Net = 99.9962 % containment ≈ 1 ball every 8 days clears the boundary — acceptable with mitigation. 8. Recommended Mitigation (for 35 ft Net) Netting Material: 35 ft black polyethylene (Netex brand netting called Dyneema). Vegetation Buffer: Layering Effect: Inner Wax Myrtle (low density) + Mid Podocarpus (mid- height columns) + Outer Sweet Viburnum (tall backdrop) = seamless 20–30 ft visual barrier in 2–3 years. 202202 11 Signage: “Caution: Practice Range Left” posted near Hole 10 approach. Operational SOPs: - Rotate hitting mats daily to maintain inward aim. - Restrict junior/high-spin practice to center bays. 9. Conclusion The 35 ft net combined with an arc-tee design provides superior visual aesthetics and safe containment performance at 40% lower visual impact compared to a 60 ft straight-tee system. With vegetation buffers and routine operational controls, this configuration meets or exceeds industry containment standards. Containment Achieved: 99.9962 % Safety Classification: Low Risk – Operationally Mitigated Recommendation: Proceed with 35 ft net installation and SOP adoption. 10. Note Bear in mind that the “containment” percentage pertains only to the probability of balls hit over a barrier, not the probability of golfers being hit by a stray ball. That probability would be far lower. We estimate the square footage of Hole 10 to be about 167,000 square feet (see screenshot below). 203203 12 Only four golfers play on Hole 10 at any given time, and there are no golfers there at certain times of day—for example, it takes most golfers at least an hour to reach Hole 10 on a round of golf typically begun in the morning. But let’s assume golfers are occupying some part of the Hole 10 fairway at all times, to be conservative. Assuming a golfer occupies two square feet of space on Hole 10 at any given time, the probability of a golfer occupying a specific spot at the same moment a stray ball exceeding a 30 foot barrier hits him or her would be equal to .0038 [the defect rate] multiplied by .00001197 [or 2 divided by 167,000], or .0000000455. We should multiply that number [.0000000455] by 4 to cover the 4 golfers on the hole at any given moment, yielding a probability of .0000001820359, or .0000182%, of actually hitting a Hole 10 golfer when a 35 foot barrier is present. We now multiply that probability [.0000001820359] by the number of balls hit on the driving range per year. We’ll say that number is 1,000,000. This would yield .182 of a ball per year that would be likely to actually hit a golfer on Hole 10, less than one-fifth of one ball per year. As we have been told, in recent years a Hole 10 golfer was injured by a ball from the driving range, but that was after the original tree barrier had been removed, leaving essentially nothing to protect the golfers. Proposed Solution: Arc Tee Model: Modern Containment Solution In any event, the following solution takes away any possibility of error. With a 35-foot barrier similar to the one used previously and ‘arcing’ the right half of the teeing ground on a 160 degree arc, an arc-based approach demonstrates superior containment efficacy by proactively orienting teeing stations toward a shared central point, thereby reducing lateral dispersion and minimizing the netting footprint. This solution produces 99.9962 % containment. This is due to the significant reduction in the possible angle that balls may be hit offline. Additional containment options, including natural barriers (trees, hedges) and procedural controls could be used for optimal safety and aesthetics. • Angular sectors analyzed: 0–10°, 10–20°, 20–30° 200 0 10y 20y 30y 40y 50y 60y 3o 6o 8o 11o 14o 16o 204204 13 • Arc model function: • Assumptions: Max carry = 250 yards; Apex = 125 yards; Height = 90 ft Alternative Netting and Natural Barrier Strategies Natural Vegetation Barriers • Instead of using an artificial barrier, plant mature trees and tall hedgerows along critical lateral zones • Use bush layering for height and depth, enhancing stopping potential without visual obtrusion Arc teeing ground or Practice Range Dividers with Standard Operating Procedures • Install arc-aligned teeing area to enforce proper tee orientation • Educate range staff and users on purpose and alignment • Rotate teeing stations consistently to maintain centerline targeting Conclusion and Recommendation The 60-foot proposed net, when compared with a 35 foot option, adds little efficacy but at a great cost to the environment. While with either option the probability of a golfer being hit by a ball is very low, the 35 foot plus arcing solution would eliminate any possibility of injury. Scientific modeling supports: • Tee arc orientation as a low-cost, high-impact method to reduce dispersion • Shorter, strategically placed nets combined with natural vegetation buffers • Operational protocols (SOPs) to preserve directional integrity and maximize player safety These recommendations will allow Quail Creek to implement a cost-effective and aesthetically integrated solution that upholds industry safety standards while respecting the integrity of the playing environment. 200 0 10y 20y 30y 40y 50y 60y 3o 6o 8o 11o 14o 16o 205205 Addendum to Quail Creek Driving Range Containment Analysis Effect of Using Limited Flight / Restricted Range Golf Balls (Arc Tee + 35 ft Net Configuration – January 2026) This addendum assesses the impact of switching to limited flight range balls (also called restricted-flight or limited-distance balls) on containment performance. These balls are commonly used at driving ranges for safety, durability, and space constraints. They are designed to reduce carry distance while attempting to preserve realistic flight characteristics (trajectory shape, spin axis for hooks/slices). Key Characteristics of Limited Flight Range Balls From industry data (e.g., Top-Flite Restricted Flight, various manufacturers' specs, and launch monitor comparisons): • Carry distance reduction — Typically 10–30% shorter than premium golf balls, depending on club and ball type: o Moderate limited-flight range balls: ~10–15% reduction (common for standard durable range balls) o Stronger restricted-flight versions: ~25–30% reduction (e.g., proprietary cores that lower ball speed) • Ball speed — Lower (due to harder-to-compress cores or materials) • Spin — Often higher backspin (especially with drivers/irons), leading to more ballooning; side spin preserved for directional control • Trajectory / Apex height — Generally lower apex and flatter/more penetrating flight overall due to reduced speed and carry, though higher spin can cause occasional ballooning. Peak heights are reduced compared to premium balls (e.g., 10–20% lower apex in many cases). • Dispersion — Similar or slightly wider due to variability in worn/abused balls, but directional control (hooks/slices) remains realistic. These changes benefit containment because balls fly shorter, lower, and reach the net line with reduced height and energy. Updated Simulation Assumptions • Original parameters maintained (dispersion σ = 8.5°, side spin ±3500 rpm, ball speed adjusted downward, etc.) • Carry distribution shift — Mean carry reduced to ~172–194 yd (20% average reduction from original 215 yd mean), with 95th percentile ~200–225 yd (instead of 250 yd) • Apex height — Reduced to mean ~68–75 ft (from 85 ft), max ~80–90 ft (from ~100 ft) • Height at net crossing — Significantly lower due to earlier descent and reduced overall trajectory height • Monte Carlo logic: Fewer shots reach high enough heights or distances to challenge the 35 ft net (effective 40 ft capture) 206206 Updated Containment Results (35 ft Net with Limited Flight Balls) • Probability a ball clears the net: <0.0005% (1 in >200,000 shots) — conservative estimate based on reduced apex/carry • Estimated balls over net per year: <6 (based on 1.2 million annual range shots) — down dramatically from original ~46 • Overall containment rate: >99.9995% • This equates to roughly 1 ball every 2+ months (or less) going over the net — a substantial safety improvement. Updated Shot Severity Breakdown • Normal/moderate launch angles (≤12°): Heights at net line reduced to <15–25 ft (fully contained) • Severe/extreme angles (>12°): Heights 25–35 ft max (very few exceed 35 ft due to lower overall trajectory) • Extreme outliers: Rare cases of high-spin ballooning might approach 35–38 ft, but reduced carry prevents many from reaching the net line at all Updated Containment Comparison (Arc Tee Configuration with Limited Flight Balls) Net Height Probability Over Net Est. Balls/Year (Hole 10 Exposure) Containment Rate 60 ft <<0.0001% <1 >99.9999% 50 ft <<0.0001% <1 >99.9999% 40 ft <0.0002% ~2 >99.9998% 35 ft <0.0005% <6 >99.9995% Updated Risk Assessment & Verdict • Airborne balls onto Hole 10: <6/year (extremely low-energy, if any) — negligible risk • Ground rollers under net: Likely reduced (~80–120/year) due to shorter overall flight • Player safety & liability risk: Very low — switching to limited-flight balls enhances safety margins significantly, often exceeding industry standards even with a 35 ft net • The use of limited-flight balls dramatically improves containment without needing taller nets, additional offsets, or major redesigns. Recommendation 207207 Switching to limited flight range balls (e.g., Top-Flite Restricted Flight or equivalent 20–30% reduction models) is a highly effective, low-cost mitigation strategy. It would: • Restore or exceed the original containment performance of the 75-yard offset configuration • Allow safe operation even with the reduced 25-yard offset (from prior addendum) • Maintain realistic practice (directional flight preserved) while prioritizing safety Final Verdict Limited flight balls provide superior containment (potentially >99.9995%) with a 35 ft net. This change is strongly recommended for enhanced safety, reduced liability, and operational simplicity — especially if extending the range closer to the fence line or addressing any residual errant ball concerns. 208208 Curriculum Vitae JOSEPH M. GROCH, PGA, M.P.S. 450 Widgeon Pt. jgroch@fgcu.edu Naples, FL 34105 Cell: 239-825-2896 PROFILE Background includes a history of lifelong learning combined with successfully managing all aspects of golf club operations with an emphasis on delivering a high level of profitability, operational efficiency, and member service. Demonstrated expertise in research, statistical analysis, analytics, presentation, and writing. Skill set also includes an extensive background in business, management, leadership, teaching, accounting, entrepreneurship, and technology. Member of the Accounting Association of America, Expert Witness, and LEAN Six Sigma Black Belt Certified. EDUCATION 2013- Hodges University- Master of Professional Studies in Applied Statistics (Summa Cum Laude) 1981: University of Wisconsin – Master Level Course in Operations Management 1980: Wharton School of Business – Courses in Supervisory Management 1976-1980: St. Joseph’s University, Philadelphia, PA – Bachelors of Science Degree Major – Accounting RESEARCH, PUBLICATIONS & PRESENTATIONS Satisfaction: A Path to Success for the Golf Industry (2012): Quantitatively assessed the factors of customer satisfaction in the Golf Industry. Presented at the refereed 2013 Mustang Journals International Academic Conference, Las Vegas, NV. Published in the conference proceedings. Winner of the Best Paper Award. Motivating Golf Employees in SWFL (2013): Quantitatively analyzed survey data on employee satisfaction with recommendations on improvement. This work has been accepted for publication to the International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration (Taylor & Francis Publishing). GSI: Key to Golfer Retention (2013): Established the relationship between employee satisfaction, operational performance, and golfer satisfaction in order to grow the industry through increased customer retention. Published in the International Journal of Social Science Research. BOOK: Employee Satisfaction: The Way to Happy Golfers and Industry Growth (2013)- Provides strategies for measuring, managing and enhancing the relationships between employee satisfaction, operational performance, and golfer satisfaction. Published by Lambert Academic Publishing. Available at Barnes & Nobel and Amazon.com. Measuring Effective Golf Facilities (2014): Established a new paradigm for measuring organizational effectiveness in the golf industry which includes financial, environmental, philanthropic, customer service, and employee satisfaction metrics. Accepted for oral presentation and publication in the refereed conference proceedings of the 2014 Clute Institute World International Academic Conference in Orlando Fl. Winner Best Paper Award BOOK: Effective Golf Management (2014): Determines the financial and operational attributes of an effective organization and its leadership team in the golf management industry. 209 Establishing Benchmarks for Success in Golf Facilities (2014): Uses multi- dimensional measures to gauge success in the golf facility industry. Published in the International Journal of Management Information Systems. Current Status and the Determinants of Golfers’ Satisfaction: An Exploratory Study (2015): Published in the International Journal of Golf Science: Provides practitioners with insight as to the significant drivers of golfer satisfaction in order to plan, organize, and control better customer service outcomes to grow their business and the industry. Presented at the World Scientific Congress of Golf at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland, U.K. (2016) PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Professor 2012 to Present - Florida Gulf Coast University- Ft. Myers, Fl Instructor in the PGA Professional Golf Management Program. Responsible for teaching Managerial Business Analytics, Financial Accounting, Golf Operations, Executive Golf Management, Golf Practicum, Golf Instructional Operations, and Player Development Director of Golf Emeritus (Lifetime) - Glades Country Club - Naples, Florida Responsible for all aspects of this 36 hole golf operation, manage 23 employees, golf course superintendent, and all merchandising. Retired 1/15/2017. CEO & CFO - DCI/MBS, Inc. 1983 to 1991 Started, owned and operated a value-added microcomputer retail and direct marketing company with multiple locations and franchises. Responsible for all company financial and managerial accounting. The company specialized in computerized system applications for small to medium-sized businesses. Sold in 1990. Manager of Cost Accounting - Scott Paper Company 1980 to 1985 Managed all staff accountants and clerks for this multi-million dollar paper plant operation. Was responsible for financial reporting to government and various reports for operations, budgets, forecasts, tax and brand cost analysis to the corporate office. Related Employment Director of Golf 2001-2003 Twin Isles Country Club- Punta Gorda, FL Director of Golf 1998 to 2001 Heron’s Glen Country Club - Ft. Myers, FL Head Golf Professional 1993 to 1998 Glades Country Club - Naples, FL ACHIEVEMENTS Horton Smith Education Award 2017- SWFL Chapter PGA Horton Smith Education Award 2016- S. Florida Section PGA Horton Smith Education Award 2016- SWFL Chapter PGA 2016 Presidential Award Best Oral Presentation at FGCU Research Day Inspirational Teacher of the Year 2016- Lutgert College of Business at FGCU Uncommon Friends Excellence in Teaching Ethics Award at FGCU-2015 Best Paper Award 2014 Clute Institute International Academic Conference Best Paper Award 2013 Mustang Journal International Academic Conference Hodges University 2012 Graduate Student of the Year ACTIVITIES AND SERVICE PGA National Speakers Bureau Conducted numerous SWFL Chapter Education Seminars Consultant for several Golf Facilities in SWFL 210 Exhibit D-1 211211 1 To: Quail Creek Affected Homeowners From: Joesph M. Groch, PGA, MPS Date: April 23, 2026 Re: Homeowner’s Independent Expert’s Quail Creek Driving Range Containment Analysis (Monte Carlo Report) vs. Quail Creek Golf Pro Memo (April 2026) My own March 31, 2026 report is a quantitative, probabilistic Monte Carlo simulation (500,000 shots) tailored to Quail Creek demographics, calculating actual ball height at the net crossing line under the 16° arc-tee + 35 ft net design. It delivers specific, defensible metrics: 99.9962% containment, ~46 balls/year over the net (premium balls), or >99.9995% (<6/year) with limited-flight balls. The rebuttal memo (from Cameron Fady, a Quail Creek employee) relies on TrackMan-style1 averages, worst-case 20-handicap examples, and general statements about apex heights, winds, and member experience. It does not provide any new probabilistic modeling, containment percentages, or balls-per-year estimates. It concludes that a 35 ft net is “insufficient” without refuting our numbers. The Monte Carlo trajectory study already incorporates the full range of amateur shot variability, including high-apex slices. Peak height is irrelevant — what matters is height at the net line, which the simulation proves is contained 99.9962% of the time (or better with limited-flight balls). The Fady memo provides no counter-data. Major Weaknesses in the Rebuttal The rebuttal has several critical technical and logical flaws that undermine its credibility: Peak Apex vs. Height at Net Crossing (Fundamental Error) The memo and Exhibit A repeatedly compare maximum apex height (e.g., driver 110–130 ft, 6-iron ~100 ft) directly to the 35 ft net. This is misleading. The net is a side perimeter barrier located at a specific downrange distance (75-yard offset originally, or 25 yards in the extended scenario). Balls reach apex early in flight and are descending by the time they reach the net line. Our Monte Carlo 1 The memo is quoting typical or representative shot data from Trackman’s database — e.g., “a 20-handicap driver goes 210 yd with 110–130 ft apex.” This approach is inappropriate for a containment analysis because: • It uses single-shot examples (or averages) instead of probabilistic modeling across thousands of real shots. • Our Monte Carlo simulation already incorporates the full range of Tackman-like variability (dispersion σ = 8.5°, side spin ±3,500 rpm, launch angles, etc.) across 500,000 shots. 212212 2 simulation explicitly models height at the exact net crossing (accounting for launch angle, carry distance, spin, and dispersion). Most shots cross well below a 35-foot effective height. The rebuttal ignores trajectory geometry entirely. No Probabilistic or Monte Carlo Analysis Our report quantifies risk across 500,000 shots using real dispersion (σ = 8.5°), side spin (±3,500 rpm), and azimuth limits (±15°). The rebuttal uses cherry-picked “representative” 20-handicap shots and worst-case variability (“safety is based on the highest possible shot, not the average”). Industry-standard containment studies (used by netting providers like Coastal and West Coast Netting) rely on probabilistic trajectory modeling — exactly what we did — to determine net height at the actual fence line. The rebuttal offers zero quantification (no % containment, no balls/year). Mischaracterization of Limited-Flight Balls The memo claims these balls “do not materially mitigate lateral dispersion” and degrade practice. This is misleading. Limited-flight balls: o Travel shorter (less likely to reach the net line at all) (10–30% reduction), o Fly slower and with lower apex (10–20% reduction) o Therefore, have far less chance of clearing the 35 ft net. Since limited-flight balls do reduce ball speed, carry, and apex height, they often result in a 10– 20% lower trajectory. So, far fewer errant shots reach the net line at all — and those that do are lower-energy. Our addendum on limited flight balls already showed containment jumping to >99.9995% (<6 balls/year). The memo dismisses this without data. The memo is technically correct that limited-flight balls do not eliminate lateral dispersion (slices, pushes, etc. still happen). But that misses the point. Dispersion is sideways spread; our safety issue is height and distance at the net line. The memo simply ignores these three critical attributes. Our simulation already proves the benefit of using self-limiting balls. Hybrid Solution is a common compromise using limited flight balls. Limited-flight (restricted- range) balls are standard industry practice at ranges with tight boundaries or adjacent fairways. Many ranges offer a hybrid solution (see #5 below) so serious players still get full-distance practice while the majority of volume uses the safer balls. This is appropriate at Quail Creek given the narrowing shape of the range and immediate proximity to Hole 10. The hybrid solution is a very common compromise at ranges nationwide. 213213 3 Simple layout: • Center and right bays (majority of the tee line) use limited-flight balls (safer, standard practice). • Premium / full-distance bays (typically 4–8 bays on the far left) use regular premium balls for better players or those who want full carry. • Balls are separated and distinguished by color Better players (longer hitters) would naturally gravitate to the left side bays; shorter or higher- handicap players would use the right-side limited-flight bays. This keeps overall capacity high, satisfies serious golfers, and protects the adjacent hole. It is used successfully at many Florida ranges and public facilities facing similar boundary issues. Unwarranted Dismissal of Arc-Tee Design The Fady memo says changing tee alignment “does not change the miss pattern” and only causes congestion. This ignores the physics of the 16° arc + 75-yard offset: it geometrically reduces the outward azimuth probability for right-biased shots. Our simulation proved this works (only 0.0038% clearance). Calling it “moving the problem” is opinion, not analysis. The memo claims the 16° arc tee would create “congestion and reduce our capacity.” This is not about players standing physically closer together. The tee bays remain the same width and spacing; only the aiming direction of the right-side mats changes (angled slightly inward). • Golfers would not stand closer. • Balls would not hit each other in flight at any meaningful rate — the arc is modest (16°) and the offset is 75 yards. • In practice, angled/arc tees are common at ranges nationwide precisely because they improve containment without reducing capacity or creating safety issues. The memo’s congestion claim is speculative and unsupported by any data. Exhibit A Chart and Member Profile Are Misleading. The memo provides Quail Creek’s own membership breakdown: • 59% age 60–80 (lower clubhead speed, 80–90 mph → lower apex). • Only 16% under 50 (higher speeds). o The bar chart equates 35 ft net to club apexes — again, wrong comparison. o Older members hit the ball slower and lower on average, which reduces both height at the net line and total exposure. This supports lower overall risk than the memo’s cherry-picked “20-handicap high-speed examples” (driver apex 110– 130 ft). o Our original Monte Carlo simulation already used Quail Creek-specific demographics (mean carry 215 yd, 95th percentile 250 yd, mixed skill levels) — the pros’ own data is consistent with (and actually reinforces) our lower-risk 214214 4 conclusions. The memo simply chooses the highest possible apex numbers to imply danger. No Risk Quantification or Injury Probability The rebuttal never calculates actual exposure to Hole 10 golfers. Our earlier analysis (0.0000182% per stray ball → <0.2 expected hits/year even at 1M shots) directly addresses the safety concern. Wind • Wind is a modest aggravating factor during morning hours but is substantially mitigated by afternoon sea breezes — our arc-tee design already accounts for natural right bias. • The effect on height at net crossing is negligible (crosswind has minimal vertical impact). • Taking into account both wind directions, the probability of balls over the net in one year changes from 46 to 58, and the estimate of risk that errant balls over the fence would actually hit a golfer changes from .18 of a ball per year to .23 of a ball per year. Below is a rough estimate of wind impact: Local Wind Patterns (December–April) • Morning / Early Day (typically 8 AM–2 PM): Predominant easterly / northeasterly winds at 8–10.3 mph average (peak east direction ~43% of hours in December). • Afternoon / PM (typically 2 PM–6 PM): Westerly sea breezes kick in (common Gulf Coast pattern), shifting to west / northwest at similar 7–10 mph. • Range operating hours are roughly balanced across morning and afternoon, so we use a time-weighted average (≈60% easterly influence, 40% westerly). 215215 Exhibit E 216216 1 PROPOSED DESIGN MODIFICATION IMPACT AND ASSESSMENT TO PROPERTY Prepared For AFFECTED NEIGHBORS ON COCO PLUM LANE AND VALEWOOD DRIVE Dated: March 22nd, 2025 Prepared By Stephen W. Eisenberg, PGA Golf Concepts Facility Consulting 12061 Wedge Drive Fort Myers, Florida 33913 217217 2 Dear affected neighbors: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my experience-based assessment regarding the proposed inclusion of a barrier net with poles higher than 60 feet, which I personally measured, in violation of zoning regulations, at the Quail Creek Country Club, in Naples, Florida. I performed two site visits to the affected property and the driving range/golf course area, to measure and determine the issues involved, and to also evaluate the adequacy of the solution provided by the Country Club, and to examine other potential options and remedies to decreasing the alleged dangers to golfers playing the golf hole adjacent to the driving range, within zoning regulations and withing PGA of America driving range recommendations. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE By way of background, I am a PGA of America Certified Golf Professional, and from 1992 to the present, I trained over 3,000 PGA Golf Professionals regarding such subjects as: Golf Course Driving Range Design, Golf Course Safety Practices, Golf Fleet Management, Golf Operations Management, Risk Management/Safety and Golf Legal Issues, and served as Faculty Head of Training and Development for the PGA of America in 2001. I have been a subject matter expert for the PGA of America since 1995. I have been published nationally on Risk Management and Golf Operations. I have owned my own golf course in New York State, building a driving range from scratch and modifying the golf course design while an owner. I am a subject matter expert with the PGA of America on Driving Range Design and Management. I am the owner of Golf Concepts, Inc., a full-service golf facility consulting service. I have consulted around the world on matters relating to golf driving range and course design, management and operations, speaking in China, Jamaica and Korea on this subject, as well as on behalf of the PGA of America, at their National Conferences. I have trained over 3,000 operators of golf courses on all facets of golf course and driving range design, operations and golf management. I have developed Professional Golf Management Programs in the United States, Korea, China, and Jamaica, which train on design and operation of golf courses. I have been the owner and operator of a golf course and golf driving range. Building the driving range, modifying the golf course design, and developing a golf academy at a facility, including topography and integrity of design. 218218 3 In addition to my consultation work, I am presently on the faculty of the Keiser University Professional Golf Management Program, and the National University Professional Golf Management Program (where I developed the entire golf course design and ownership/management curriculum). I am certified in Golf Operations through the PGA of America and serve as a Subject Matter Expert for the PGA of America in the areas of Golf Driving Range Design, Golf Management, Golf Course Design, and Golf Range and Academy design. I have been a featured speaker on these topics at two Chinese Universities, one in Korea, and one in Jamaica. I have played golf since I was five, and have been a member at three golf courses, and have played at literally a thousand or more golf courses during my career. I have competed in tournaments at the amateur level, as well as on the Professional level through the PGA of America. I have trained personnel in golf course design and management practices, Golf Instruction and Academy Programs, Business Planning, Golf Car Fleet Management, and Safety and Operations for the last 20 years. I have vast experience regarding golf operation and driving range design experience, and maintenance practices, from the standpoint of use and experience, and my first job in the golf industry was as a grounds maintenance employee back in 1978, as well as acting in the capacity of a utility field employee, mowing greens, fairways, and inspection of the golf course prior to play. After that time, I managed 4 facilities, owned one, where I designed and developed the driving range and netting/fencing from the ground up, in New York State, designed and modified existing golf courses and driving ranges, and became the lead trainer for the PGA of America in Golf Management and Driving Range Design. I have lectured on liability issues in the golf industry regarding golf facility operations and for the PGA of America nationally. In 2013, I was the project manager at Gateway Golf and Country Club during its golf course and range renovation project, where I helped design and modify the existing range, which resulted in a major golf academy locating at this facility. Additionally, I have taught golf course and driving range design for the PGA of America for over 25 years. 219219 4 As a golf course and driving range designer and subject matter expert for the PGA of America on Driving Range and Golf Course Design, and Golf Management Operations, I was able to determine deficiencies in the existing design configuration and tee set-up and determine, through trajectory analysis, deficiencies in the existing driving range areas that must be addressed. I also determined multiple options to address those deficiencies in order to stop golf balls from leaving the driving range and entering the adjacent 10th hole. In accordance with the homeowners’ request, I reviewed an abundance of Google Earth depictions, took measurements of the driving range itself and the poles presently situated on the property, constructed without proper permitting and in violation of zoning regulations, and other documents regarding the condition of the premises in the past, and the modifications to the hole and tee box, adjacent to the perimeter of the golf course, to help assess the existing set-up of the tee area, to determine the present sufficiency of the tee area from a safety standpoint, and any trees acting as a barrier, to help in assessing the feasibility of alternative golf course tee alignments and set-ups and additional potential barrier remedies. I employed golf ball trajectory and speed analysis to determine whether the extremely large barrier poles and netting would add any protection to golfers on the 10th hole. As I measure the installed poles, they are over 60 feet in height, probably 63 feet, with a 50-inch circumference, and with an intended black netting. I was able to easily see these poles from the back of affected neighbors’ homes. To say they presented an unsightly image is an understatement. Moreover, the highest poles identified impact an area where golf balls would have already lost most of their trajectory and force, and the contemplated net would therefore be totally ineffective. This driving range is only about 280 yards long, and starts at about 100 yards wide, narrowing to 66-70 yards wide and then even less, 50 yards and below as it approaches the end of Hole 10. This creates a situation in which there is a larger potential for golf balls to be hit outside the range. I understand that the installation of large poles on the driving range was done without consulting a golf driving range designer, which is problematic as the dangers to be rectified between the range and the golf hole in question need research before implementation. This solution, implemented illegally by the Country Club, does not solve the issue of golf balls from the driving range being hit onto the adjacent 10th hole. The photographs below show the poles in question at Quail Creek Country Club: 220220 5 221221 6 The below photograph shows the significant tree buffer that originally protected golfers playing the 10th hole, with the black dots indicating where the unsightly and permit-violative poles have been placed: The picture on the next page shows the same area after REMOVAL of barrier trees that provided significant protection to golfers playing the 10th hole. I have learned through historical research of the driving range in question, that trees acting as a barrier between the driving range and golf hole were removed by the Country Club from 2012- 2022, thus creating a lack of buffering between the range and the adjacent golf hole. Leaving those trees in place would have continued to provide a meaningful and effective buffer between the driving range and the 10th hole. The thick barrier trees were replaced with a 2-to-5 foot berm and a few skimpy palm trees that offer very little protection, if any, to golfers. The golf course affirmatively created the danger to players playing the 10th hole with the removal of these barrier trees. 222222 7 Furthermore, the golf course also removed trees close to the front tee area to add a “short iron” tee box, which drastically increased the potential for golf balls to enter the 10th hole. The barrier trees were also removed, in part, to allow creation of a “back” tee to the existing driving range. Quail Creek increased the danger to players playing the 10th hole by adding a new tee area at the opposite end of the driving range, while removing the very barrier trees that would have prevented shots from being hit from the back end of the range toward the 10th hole. This tee box should be eliminated, as it increases the number of golf balls entering into the 10th hole playing area and homeowner property. In addition to the tree barrier removal, Quail Creek Country Club’s expansion of its front driving range tee box in 2014 has affirmatively increased the danger to the golfers playing the 10th hole by having players hit practice shots even closer to the 10th hole than before. The tee box renovation has pushed the side of the range to the right by 25 yards. In this area, golfers hitting a “slice” or “push” shot could hit a ball toward the 10th hole. This driving range expansion was 223223 8 obviously done without considering increased dangers to those playing the 10th hole. Therefore, this renovation should be removed, by eliminating the expansion of the tee box area on the right side. If elimination of the right side of the tee box is not performed, at the very least it should be mandated that the tee “stations” be placed on the left side or middle of the tee box only. Alternatively, if this tee box expansion is not eliminated, an L-shaped netting barrier or hedgerow should be placed to the right side of this tee box so as to “knock down” golf balls hit directly to the right, or slicing to the right. The barrier I am suggesting should be placed at the point of origin, near the tee box, so those barriers can deflect both “pushes” (shots hit directly to the right), and “slices”(shots going straight initially then veering to the right) headed toward the 10th hole. Also, because of the trajectory of typical golf balls being much higher than the 60+ feet poles installed, the only way to protect golfers is to eliminate shots in that direction immediately, or decreasing the likelihood that they will reach the 10th hole, by using “limited flight” golf balls, which I have learned were originally used at the club prior to 2019, and disallowing the use of longer clubs, commonly referred to as “woods.” Common parlance would refer to this as an “irons only” solution. To achieve a better understanding of how golf balls travel, it is important to understand BALL FLIGHT LAWS. Those laws establish how a golf ball may travel, either at its target, or well to the left or right of the target. In this instance, golf balls going to the right are problematic. A golf ball can be hit toward the right of target in the following ways: 1) By hitting toward your target, but the face of the club is aiming toward the right. The ball will “slice,” meaning start at the intended target and end up well to the right of target. This is a very common problem in golf and experienced by most golfers. Golf balls will end up toward the 10th hole as a result. Or, 2) a golf ball is hit DIRECTLY to the right, because the path of the golfer’s club is swinging out to the right. This is also a common issue with golfers. Both of these problems are ameliorated by having “irons only” and limited flight golf balls in use. It is my professional opinion that a hedgerow or tree barrier close to the tee box area, in conjunction with limited flight golf balls and use of irons only, would be the most effective pragmatic and essential safety elements from a construction and use standpoint to provide maximal protection to those playing the 10th hole. The barrier placed on the property in violation of zoning ordinances WILL NOT prevent golf balls from entering the 10th hole. To be effective, nets or fences must have been assessed in a trajectory analysis for their sufficiency in blocking golf balls at the typical average height for a golf shot hit toward your property or toward the 10th hole. I have received no information that such a study was done. From my own expertise, a hedgerow barrier or netting barrier at the front side of the tee box would knock down most golf shots hit toward the 10th hole. 224224 9 From the front edge of the driving range tee box there is a distance of approximately 100 to 200 yards to the 10th hole. An “L-shaped” fence or hedgerow near the tee box, or, better yet, facing diagonally to the tee box would offer considerable protection from sliced and pushed shots. A picture helps demonstrate how this solution would function and is shown below on the left side of the photograph in black: THE HEDGEROW WOULD STOP DRIVING RANGE BALLS FROM ENTERING THE 10TH HOLE. A golf ball, later in its flight, at approximately 150 to 200 yards, has lost most of its speed and does not have nearly the potential for injuries to patrons. I have read the variance narrative provided by the Country Club in support of its variance request. I disagree with many assertions in that document. For one, the barrier they seek permission to install has a measurable impact on the public interest, in that the 60-foot barrier would be unsightly, and does not provide the safety elements advocated by Quail Creek Country Club. Here are my issues with the information provided by the club in their variance request: 225225 10 1. The 60+-foot barrier would not protect patrons on the 10th hole, since the majority of golf balls struck will have an apex much higher than 60 feet, and does nothing at the tee box itself, which is the point of origin and the location of maximal speed of golf balls hit toward the 10th hole. 2. The Club says that without the variance, it cannot install an effective containment barrier. My analysis says that the club is approaching this issue from the wrong perspective-it should eliminate shots that are problematic by using limited flight golf balls and require players to use only irons while practicing. This is a strategy employed effectively at thousands of driving ranges across the country. 3. The golf course has removed any trees that would act to hide the 60+--foot proposed barrier. The use of black poles increases the deleterious effect on adjacent property and is unsightly. There are a variety of colorways available that fit into the natural elements of a golf course and would blend into the terrain. 4. Quail Creek Country Club has affirmatively created an increased risk of danger through its design modifications to the tee box and removal of barrier trees, especially in view of the clear evidence the club has been notified and is aware that golf balls are going to the right side of the driving range, toward the 10th hole. A discussion of my analysis, addressing barriers, the tee box set up, golf ball trajectories, and the zone of danger, follows. 1) PERIMETER BARRIERS OFF THE TEE BOX AREA AND THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE DRIVING RANGE ADJACENT TO THE 10TH HOLE I examined Google Earth images of the existing driving range and tee box area and made two site visits. I assessed the existing perimeter fencing, or lack thereof, on the right-side of the subject hole, and any existing tree buffer, and assessed what could be done to improve the tee box set-up and add perimeter fencing/netting. By “set-up,” we, as designers, are referring to the way the tee box area is laid out in relation to the “field” of golf ball travel for the typical golfer. A set-up should account for golfers of all ability levels. This should consider the length of the golf hole, the width of the golf hole, and the perimeter barricades on the sides of the tee box as well as on the right side of this golf hole. It also factors in the way the tee station area is configured, regarding the direction or directions that a player is suggested or encouraged to aim. The subject driving range formerly had a substantial tree buffer. It has no tee box barriers. Other than noting this configuration, I was asked to concentrate my efforts on the right-side area of the driving range, and back of the driving range. I also examined the tee box configuration of the driving range. In doing my assessment, I noted the existing violative perimeter fencing on the right side of the driving range as viewed from the tee box. 226226 11 My immediate conclusion when first examining this area: The 10th hole would be very protected with a barrier net or fence adjacent to it in a configuration both diagonal and parallel to the 10th hole. For purposes of illustration, this could be looked at as a modified “L” configuration. Such a barrier would provide substantial protection as a deflective barrier to a golf ball because it would stop “pushes” and “slices” toward the 10TH hole fairway. The exact location and size of the “L” shaped barrier would need to be assessed and analyzed on site, since the fence must have a proper effective height and placement angle to be maximally effective. I would also strongly recommend removal of the “short iron” tee box to the right of the previously existing tee box. There are no guarantees that only short irons would be used, and, even if they are, golf balls from this area are MORE LIKELY to enter the 10th hole, as they are closer to the 10th hole. 2) EXISTING TEEING AREA AND SET-UP RECOMMENDATIONS: I have these suggestions to improve this area: In its present configuration, the tee box area presents hazards that must be rectified to make the range safer. 1. The tee box renovation should be removed by eliminating the expansion of the tee box area on the right side. If elimination of the right side of the tee box is not performed, at the very least it should be mandated that the tee “stations” be placed on the left side or middle of the tee box only. 2. Also, a hedgerow or tree barrier as described above, should be placed near the tee box. This is obviously an affordable solution, blocking errant shots at point of origin. 3) GOLF BALL MEASUREMENT DATA: To effectively assess the dangers of the existing hole set-up, I engaged in analysis of the tee box from a point parallel to this tee area, in conjunction with the 10th hole. From historical industry data readily available, it is a simple matter to see the improvement in safety due to the design modifications being suggested: A) Elimination of drivers and woods on the range, and the use of self-limiting balls, would drastically increase safety of those playing the 10th hole. B) Based on the physics associated with golf ball trajectory, by height and distance, a sample of ball speeds and trajectories is below and refers to PGA Tour player trajectories. Average players will be drastically below the height and typical trajectories of a PGA Tour player: 227227 12 The key takeaway from this chart is that a golf ball will travel at a top speed of 167 mph and, at its apex, reach to a height of approximately 90 feet. That height is significantly lower as a golf ball approaches the end of its trajectory. Therefore, a barrier adjacent and diagonal to the perimeter of the tee box area a viable and effective option to ensure safety. The danger is much greater at the beginning of a golf shot than the end of a shot. As a shot travels beyond its apex, its speed will be drastically reduced and therefore less likely to cause injury. Golfers of all different ability levels hit shots wayward drastically left and right. Thus, the effective solution is to directly address the safety of those on the right-side of the range perimeter by providing a hedgerow of trees or a fencing barrier camouflaged by trees. This would work wonders in eliminating shots hit toward the 10th hole. To be effective, the barrier must be placed close to the tee box. 4) ZONE OF DANGER ANALYSIS There is a “zone of danger” or “predictable playing area” utilized in the initial design of a golf course, and especially with golf ranges in proximity to homeowners. This concept must also be applied to any modified design of a golf course, and certainly to the incorporation of any new driving range teeing areas. 228228 13 There are specific criteria for the establishment of safe zones by virtue of the design. This helps determine where errant golf balls are likely to fly. The design of a driving range should attempt to constrict this zone of danger. This was not done in the extension of the tee line on the front tee box to the right side and is therefore the reason why the 10th hole may be receiving more golf balls than before. Also, as was clearly demonstrated to me, golf balls regularly enter the yards of the Coco Plum Lane homes. The danger to these properties was increased by the creation of the additional tee area at the back of the driving range. In the graph chart above, while showing a dogleg to the right, this graph is still representative of the zone of danger for a golf hole where balls may travel to the right or left. The zone of danger is approximately 275 feet to the left and to the right at a point 100 to 200 yards from the tee box. This puts the Coco Plum Lane properties squarely in the crosshairs of the Zone of Danger, necessitating elimination of the back tee box area completely. Both new teeing areas should therefore be removed. In conclusion, the design options I am suggesting are as follows: 1) Remove the unusually ugly and useless 60+-foot poles and net. 2) Use restricted or limited flight golf balls, as originally used by Quail Creek Country Club. 3) Make the driving range “irons only.” 4) Eliminate the “short iron” tee box expansion due to its proximity to the 10th hole, and the lack of guarantee that players will use this area only for what are considered “short” shots. 5) Add a perimeter fence or tree barrier in an “L” shape to the right side of the range near the tee box, as pictured on page 9 above. 229229 14 6) If a fence is used, add a tree barrier around it. This will be aesthetically pleasing and comport with the Audubon-certified nature of the golf course. These options are the best methods to significantly increase the safety of patrons at this golf course, in accordance with zoning mandates. My calculations and assessment are subject to change should additional information be received. Respectfully submitted: Stephen Eisenberg, PGA, Golf Concepts, Inc. March 22ND , 2025 230230 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 231 Exhibit F Attachment 6: Exhibits F through X-1 232 233 Exhibit G 234234 Report Title: Date: Code Case Details 3/23/2026 10:02:01 AM Case Number:CESD20260000543 Case Information CESD20260000543Case Number: Case Type: Priority: Site Development Normal Inspector: Jurisdiction: Origin: pattersonsherry Collier County Code Enforcement Public Portal Detail Description:Containment fence on driving range constructed without permit. Location Comments:5375 Hibiscus Dr. - On golf course driving range. 5375 Hibiscus Dr, Naples, FL 34113 OpenStatus: Date & Time Entered: Entered By: 1/15/2026 6:01:01 AM webAnonymousUser Case Disposition:Case Pending Address 5375 Hibiscus DR, Naples Property 49706500247 Address Location Complainant Christopher Ragain Property Owner NASSIF GOLF VENTURES LLC Contacts 1Business Management & Budget Office 235 Execution Date 3/23/2026 10:02:01 AMCode Case Details Investigations Desc Assigned Required Completed Outcome Comments Addressing Review Adam.Farina 1/15/2026 1/15/2026 Complete Verify Complainant Jason.Packar d 1/15/2026 1/15/2026 Verified verified CE Case Research Jason.Packar d 1/15/2026 1/26/2026 Complete Awaiting meeting with Supervisor and Director Initial Inspection Jason.Packar d 1/26/2026 1/26/2026 Violation(s) Found PackardJason 01/26/2026 9:48 AM - Supervisor Collier advised that he met with Director Iandimarino who advised case should proceed with area investigator at this time. Violation found based on emails received from Attorney Zach Lombardo regarding other case in Collier County related to driving range containment devices in areas zoned GC (golf course). Will prepare Notice of Violation. Attach Picture(s)Jason.Packar d 1/26/2026 2/3/2026 Complete Record Violations Jason.Packar d 1/26/2026 1/29/2026 Complete Generate Notice of Violation Jason.Packar d 1/29/2026 1/29/2026 Complete Personal Service Attempt Jason.Packar d 1/30/2026 1/30/2026 Complete Served to General Manager Brian Diver CE Staff Review Donna.Gentsc h 1/30/2026 1/30/2026 Complete Attached CESD20260000543 AOS dg Hello Donna - Please notarize the AOS in the case. Thanks! - JP29 Re-Inspection Jason.Packar d 3/2/2026 3/2/2026 Non- Compliant PackardJason 03/02/2026 8:45 AM - Violation remains. Permit PRAC20260208014 has been applied for and is currently in "Incomplete Application" status. Property has not sold as of today. Will continue to monitor. Re-Inspection pattersonsherr y 4/1/2026 Pending ShPa Unpermitted containment netting on driving range. NOV issued. Permit has been applied for. Property is in process of being sold. Contact for current owner is David Nassif (David@nmdev.com) Violations Violation Description Status Entered Corrected Amount Comments Building Permit LDC NOV Issued 1/29/2026 $0 Construction of golf course driving range containment netting and poles without Collier County permits or Approvals. CO Required ATF Permits NOV Issued 1/29/2026 $0 Improvement Prior to Building Permit NOV Issued 1/29/2026 $0 NOV Issued 1/29/2026 $0 2Business Management & Budget Office 236 Execution Date 3/23/2026 10:02:01 AMCode Case Details Hearings Title Reason Result Compliance Fine/Day Condition 3Business Management & Budget Office 237 Report Title: Date: Code Case Details 3/23/2026 10:00:46 AM Case Number:CESD20260001458 Case Information CESD20260001458Case Number: Case Type: Priority: Site Development Normal Inspector: Jurisdiction: Origin: Nicholas.Rammel Collier County Code Enforcement Complaint Detail Description:Unpermitted containment fence/netting on golf course/driving range Location Comments:Imperial Golf Course. 1808 Imperial Golf Course Blvd- On golf course driving range. See CESD20260000543 for same complainant information. OpenStatus: Date & Time Entered: Entered By: 2/9/2026 9:16:24 AM christopherambach Case Disposition:Case Pending Address 1808 Imperial Golf Course BLVD, (Clubhouse) , Naples Property 151960002 Address Location Property Owner IMPERIAL GOLF CLUB INC Contacts 1Business Management & Budget Office 238 Execution Date 3/23/2026 10:00:46 AMCode Case Details Investigations Desc Assigned Required Completed Outcome Comments Verify Complainant Nicholas.Ram mel 2/9/2026 2/9/2026 Verified CE Staff Review christopheram bach 2/9/2026 2/9/2026 Complete Complainant--Christopher Ragain, Address:3408 Atlantic Cir, Phone:(239) 297- 2988 no need to verify as that has been done by Director. see email attached. christopherambach 02/09/2026 9:20 AM Update Picture(s)christopheram bach 2/9/2026 2/9/2026 Complete CE Staff Review Nicholas.Ram mel 2/9/2026 2/9/2026 Complete see me to discuss. christopherambach 02/09/2026 9:23 AM CE Case Research Nicholas.Ram mel 2/9/2026 2/9/2026 Complete Initial Inspection Nicholas.Ram mel 2/10/2026 2/10/2026 Incomplete Onsite, spoke to the maintenance supervisor Jeff about the complaint and he took me to the driver range to take pictures of the fence/netting. Determination from Doug (building) and Ray. RammelNicholas 02/10/2026 2:46 PM Initial Inspection Follow-up Nicholas.Ram mel 2/20/2026 2/20/2026 Incomplete Determination from Doug stated a permit is required for the net and poles on the driving range. RammelNicholas 02/20/2026 10:41 AM Initial Inspection Follow-up Nicholas.Ram mel 2/25/2026 2/25/2026 Incomplete Called Jeff, maint. supervisor (239-438-6901) to advise him that the driving range netting/poles will need a permit. He said he will look into getting that completed. Initial Inspection Follow-up Nicholas.Ram mel 3/19/2026 3/19/2026 Incomplete Called Jeff, maint. supervisor (239-438-6901) who stated he will call GMD to see what he needs to do to obtain a permit for the golf course driving range netting and poles. RammelNicholas 03/19/2026 10:08 AM Initial Inspection Follow-up Nicholas.Ram mel 4/1/2026 Pending Violations Violation Description Status Entered Corrected Amount Comments Hearings Title Reason Result Compliance Fine/Day Condition 2Business Management & Budget Office 239 Exhibit H 240240 241 242 243 Exhibit I 244244 245 246 247 Exhibit J 248248 249 250 251 Exhibit K 252252 253 254 255 Exhibit L 256256 257 258 Exhibit M 259259 4\,,341'>. 9J!I -- ~ -. j ta ORDINANCE NO. 04- 41 I '-~ a ORDINANCE OFTHEBOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS F COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, RECODIFYINGTHECOlliERCOUNTYlANDDEVELOPMENTCODE, WHICHINCLUDESTHEl'Z'ilGZ COMPREHENSIVE REGULATIONS FORTHEUNINCORPORATEDAREAOFCOLLIERCOUNTY, FLORIDA, BYSUPERCEDINGORDINANCENUMBER91-102, AS AMENDED; PROVIDING FOR:SECTION ONE, RECITALS; SECTION TWO, FINDINGS OF FACT;SECTION THREE, RECODIFICATION OF THElANDDEVELOPMENTCODE, MORE SPECIFICAllY BYCREATINGTHEFOllOWING: CHAPTER 1 - GENERALPROVISIONS,INCLUDING SEC. 1.01.00 TITLE, SEC. 1.02.00 AUTHORITY, SEC~n 1. 03.00 RULES OF CONSTRUCTION, SEC. 1.04.0~:: JAPPLICABILITY, SEC. 1.05.00 FINDINGS, PURPOSE AND~~. C.._ f'1 INTENT, SEC. 1.06.00 RULES OF INTERPRETATION, SEC. 1. 07.00~.::-:~ lAWS ADOPTED BY REFERENCE, SEC. 1.08.00 DEFINITIONS; i.;;~:'~ :;; CHAPTER2 - ZONING DISTRICTS AND USES, INCLUDING SEC. t,::. 2.01.00 GENERAllY, SEC. 2.02.00 ESTABLISHMENT OF ZONING :::~.. 5: il ~DISTRICTS, SEC. 2.03.00 ZONING DISTRICTS, SEC. 2.04.00 r c; CS 0f\, "'.PERMISSIBLE, CONDITIONAL, AND ACCESSORY USES IN :::6:;; U1 ZONING DISTRICTS, SEC. 2.05.00 DENSITYSTANDARDS, SEC. ~ r.:i \.0 2.06.00 AFFORDABLEHOUSINGDENSITYBONUS, SEC. 2.07.00TABLEOFSETBACKSFORBASEZONINGDISTRICTS;CHAPTER 3 - RESOURCE PROTECTION, INCLUDING SEC.3.01.00 GENERAllY, SEC. 3.02.00 FLOODPLAIN PROTECTION,SEC. 3.03.00 COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT, SEC. 3.04.00 PROTECTION OF ENDANGERED, THREATENED, OR LISTED SPECIES, SEC. 3.05.00VEGETATIONREMOVAL, PROTECTION,AND PRESERVATION, SEC. 3.06.00 WEllFIElD AND GROUNDWATER PROTECTION; CHAPTER4 - SITE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, INCLUDINGSEC. 4.01.00 GENERAll Y, SEC. 4.02.00 SITE DESIGN STANDARDS, SEC.4.03.00 SUBDIVISION DESIGNANDlAYOUT, SEC. 4.04.00TRANSPORTATIONSYSTEMSTANDARDS, SEC. 4.05.00OFF-STREET PARKING AND lOADING, SEC. 4.06.00 lANDSCAPING,BUFFERING, AND VEGETATION RETENTION, SEC. 4.07.00 DESIGN STANDARDS FORPLANNEDUNITDEVELOPMENTS,SEC. 4.08.00RURALlANDSSTEWARDSHIPAREAZONINGOVERLAYDISTRICTSTANDARDSANDPROCEDURES, LIST OF TABLESINCHAPTER4; CHAPTER 5 - SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS, INCLUDING SEC. 5.01.00 GENERAllY, SEC.5.02.00 HOME OCCUPATIONS, SEC. 5.03.00 ACCESSORY USESANDSTRUCTURES, SEC. 5.04.00TEMPORARYUSESANDSTRUCTURES, SEC. 5.05.00 SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS FOR SPECIFICUSES, SEC. 5.06.00 SIGNS, INCLUDING AN AMENDMENT TO SEC. 5.06.06 POLITICAL SIGNS; CHAPTER 6 _INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS AND ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING SEC. 6.01.00 GENERAllY, SEC. 6.02.00 ADEQUATE PUBLICFACILITIESREQUIREMENTS, SEC. 6.03.00 WASTEWATER SYSTEMS AND IMPROVEMENTS STANDARD, SEC. 6.04.00 POTABLE WATER SYSTEMS AND IMPROVEMENTSSTANDARDS, SEC. 6.05.00 WATERMANAGEMENTSYSTEMSANDDRAINAGEIMPROVEMENTSTANDARDS, SEC. 6.06.00 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMSTANDARDS; CHAPTER 7 - RESERVED; CHAPTER8DECISION-MAKING AND ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES,INCLUDINGSEC. 8.01.00 GENERAllY, SEC. 8.02.00 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, SEC. 8.03.00PLANNING 260260 9.02.00 DEVELOPMENT WITH VESTED RIGHTS, SEC. 9.03.00 NONCONFORMITIES, SEC. 9.04.00 VARIANCES; CHAPTER 10 _APPLICATION, REVIEW, AND DECISION- MAKING PROCEDURES, INCLUDING SEC. 10.01. 00 GENERALLY, SEC.10.02.00 APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS, SEC. 10.03.00 NOTICEREQUIREMENTS, SEC. 10.04.00 REVIEW AND ACTION ONAPPLICATIONSFORDEVELOPMENTORDERSANDPETITIONSFORAMENDMENTSTOTHEOFFICIALZONINGMAP, THELDC,OR THE GMP, SEC. 10.05.00 AMENDMENTS TO DEVELOPMENT ORDERS, SEC. 10.06.00 APPEALS, SEC. 10.07. 00 ENFORCEMENT, SEC. 10.08.00 CONDITIONAL USES PROCEDURES, AND APPENDICES A THROUGH H, INCLUDINGANEWAPPENDIX "H" OF CROSS-REFERENCES BETWEEN THE LDC AND UDC; SECTION FOUR, REPEALER; SECTION FIVE,CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; SECTION SIX, PUBLICATION AS THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; AND SECTION SEVEN, EFFECTIVE DATES.RECITALS WHEREAS, on October 30, 1991 , the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (Board) adopted Ordinance No. 91-102, the Collier County Land Development Code (LOC), which became effective on November 13, 1991, and which has been subsequently amended by numerous ordinances comprising eighteen (18)supplements; and WHEREAS, the Board has directed that the LOC be revised to update and simplify its format, and use; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission, acting in part in its capacity as the Local Planning Agency pursuant to ~ 163.3194 (2), F.S., in a manner prescribed by law, did hold an advertised public hearing on May 6, 2004, which was continued for a hearing on May 20, 2004, which was continued for a separately advertised final consideration and vote on June 17, 2004, and did take affirmative action concerning these revisions to the LOC, including finding that the provisions of the proposed recodification of the LOC implement and are consistent with the adopted Growth Management Plan of Collier County; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners, in a manner prescribed by law,did hofd an advertised public hearing on May 11, 2004, which was continued for a hearing on May 25, 2004, which was continued for a separately advertised final adoption hearing on June 22, 2004, and did take affirmative action concerning these revisions to the LOG;and WHEREAS, the revisions to, and recodification of, the LOG does not substantively alter in any way the prior existingLOG text and the substantive 261261 the Collier County Growth Management Plan as required by Subsections 163.3194 ( 1)and 163.3202 (3), F.S.1; and WHEREAS, on March 18, 1997, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Resolution 97-177 establishing local requirements and procedures for amending the LOC;and WHEREAS, all requirements of Resolution 97-177 have been met; and WHEREAS, all other applicable substantive and procedural requirements of the law have been met for the adoption of this ordinance and Land Development Code.NOW, THEREFORE BE IT OROAINEO by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that:SECTION ONE: RECITALS.The foregoing Recitals are true and correct and incorporated by reference herein as if fully set forth.SECTION TWO: FINDINGS OF FACT.The Board of County CommissionersofCollierCounty, Florida, hereby makes the following findings of fact:1. Collier County, pursuant to Sec. 163.3161, et seq., F.S., the Florida LocalGovernmentComprehensivePlanningandLandOevelopmentRegulationsActhereinafterthe "Act"), is required toprepareandadoptaGrowthManagement Plan also referred to as a Comprehensive Plan.2. After adoption of theComprehensivePlan, the Act and in particular Sec.163.3202(1), F.S., mandates that Collier County adopt land development regulations that are consistent with, and implement, the adopted comprehensive plan.3. Sec. 163.3201, F.S., provides that it is the intent of the Act that the adoptionandenforcementbyCollierCountyoflanddevelopmentregulationsforthetotalunincorporatedareashallbebasedon, be related to, and be a means of implementation for, the adopted Comprehensive Plan as required by the Act.4. Sec. 163.3194(1 )(b), F.S., requires that all landdevelopmentregulationsenactedoramendedbyCollierCountybeconsistentwiththeadoptedComprehensivePlan, or element or portion thereof, and any land development regulations existing atthetimeofadoptionwhicharenotconsistentwiththeadoptedComprehensive Plan, or element or portion thereof, shall be amended so as to be consistent.5. Sec. 163.3202(3), F.S., states that the Actshallbeconstruedtoencouragetheuse of innovative land development regulations, including transfer of development rights, planned unitdevelopment, and impact fees.6. On January 10, 1989, Collier CountyadoptedtheCollierCountyGrowthManagementPlan (hereinafter the "Growth Management Plan" or "GMP") as its Comprehensive Plan pursuant to the requirements of Sec. 163.3161, et seq., F.S., and Rule 9J-5, F.A.C.7. Sec. 163.3194(1)(a), F.S., mandates that after a Comprehensive Plan, or element or portion thereof, has been adopted in conformity with the Act, all development undertaken by, and allactionstakeninregardtodevelopmentordersby, governmental agencies in regard tolandcovered by such Comprehensive Plan, or element 262262 8. Pursuant to Sec. 163.3194(3)(a), F.S., a development orderorlanddevelopmentregulationshallbeconsistentwiththeComprehensivePlanifthelanduses,densities or intensities, and other aspects of development permitted by suchorderorregulationarecompatiblewithandfurthertheobjectives, policies, landuses, and densities or intensities in the Comprehensive Plan and if it meets allothercriteriaenumeratedbythe local government.9. Pursuant to Section 163.3194(3)(b) F.S., a development approved or undertaken by a local government shall be consistent with theComprehensivePlanifthelanduses, densities or intensities, capacity or size, timing, and other aspects of development are compatible with, and further the objectives, policies, land uses, densities or intensities in the Comprehensive Plan and if it meets allothercriteriaenumerated by the local government.10. On October 30, 1991, Collier County adoptedtheoriginalCollierCountyLandDevelopmentCode, which became effective on November 13, 1991.11. The Board finds that the Land OevelopmentCodeisintendedandnecessarytopreserveandenhancethepresentadvantagesthatexistinCollierCounty;encourage the most appropriate use of land, water andresources, consistent with the public interest; overcome present handicaps; and dealeffectivelywithfutureproblemsthatmayresultfromtheuseanddevelopmentoflandwithinthetotalunincorporatedareofCollierCountyanditisintendedthatthisLandDevelopmentCodepreserve, promote,protect, and improve the public health, safety, comfort, good order, appearance,convenience, and general welfare of Collier County; prevent theovercrowdingoflandandavoidtheundueconcentrationofpopulation; facilitate theadequateandefficientprovisionoftransportation, water, sewerage schools, parks, recreational facilities, housing, and other requirements and services, conserve, develop, utilize, and protect natural resources within the jurisdiction of Collier County; and protecthuman, environmental, social, and economic resources; and maintain through orderlygrowthanddevelopment, the character and stability of present and future land uses and development in Collier County.12. It is the intent of the Board of County CommissionersofCollierCountytoimplementtheLandDevelopmentCodeinaccordancewiththeprovisionsoftheCollierCountyComprehensivePlan, Chapter 125, F.S., andChapter163, F.S., and through these revisions to, and recodification of, the LOC.SECTION THREE: ADOPTIONOF RECODIFICATION TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.The attached Exhibit "A," being the revised and recodified text of the existing Land Development Code and corresponding appendices, is hereby adopted by the Board of County Commissioners as the Land Development Code of Collier County, Florida, as required by ~ 163.3202 (1) & (3), F.S., and is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein as a part of this adopting Ordinance.SECTION FOUR: REPEALER.The Land Development Code set out herein supercedes and repeals any and all resolutions and ordinances in conflict herewith, specifically including Ordinance No. 91-102,as amended, except that the legal effect of Section 1 .22.1 as specifically set forth in the existing Land Development Code on the date this Ordinance becomes effective will remain unchanged as to the ordinances referenced therein being repealed. Furthermore, all ordinances pertaining to approved Planned Unit Developments (PUOs), and all changes to the Official Zoning Atlas, lawfully approved prior to this Ordinance becoming effective, will remain in effect and not be repealed by, or be affected 263263 SECTION FIVE: CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY. In the event this Ordinance conflicts with any other ordinance of Collier County or of any other statute, code, local resolution, regulation or other applicable federal, state, or local law, the more stringent standard, limitation, or requirement shall govern or prevail to the extent of the conflict, except that in the event that any provisions of the adopted, re-codified LDC should result in the unintended consequence of an unresolved conflict with the provisions of the previously adopted LDC, as amended, the prior provisions will be considered to apply. Determinations regarding such unresolved cases will be made administratively within ten (10) business days of being presented in writing to the Zoning & Land Development Review Director by a five 5) member panel with extensive knowledge of, and significant experience working with, the LDC, three (3) of whom will be County employees and two (2) of whom will not, all to be appointed by the Administrator of the Community Development &Environmental Services Division. If not thereby resolved, the case and all supporting documentation, may be immediately appealed to, and finally decided by, the Collier County Planning Commission, and if not thereby resolved, may then be judicially determined in any manner consistent with the applicable law.It is the legislative intent of the Board of County Commissioners in adopting this Ordinance and LOC that all provisions hereof shall be liberally construed to protect and preserve the peace, health, safety, and general welfare of the inhabitants of the unincorporated portion of Collier County. Should any portion or provision of this Ordinance or LOC be held to be unconstitutional or invalid by a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent portion or provision and such holding shall not be construed as affecting the validity of any of the remaining portions or provisions.SECTION SIX: PUBLICATION AS THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.The provisions of this Ordinance as set forth in Exhibit A, being adopted and enacted as the Official Land Development Code of Collier County, Florida, shall be so published. The provisions of Exhibit A of this Ordinance may be corrected as to any misspellings, formatting, or numbering errors; and may be renumbered or relettered, and the word "ordinance" may be changed tc "section," "chapter, II or any otherappropriateword, as part of the publishing process, so long as the substance and intent of the adopted provisions is not altered in any way.SECTION SEVEN: EFFECTIVE DATE.This Ordinance shall become effective, after filing with the DepartmentofState, at 12:01 AM on September 27th, 2004 Page 5 of 6 0..-264264 coordination of urban services and land uses while minimizing the potentialdisruptionoftheusesofnearbyproperties. B. Community Facility District "CF".The purpose and intent of "CF" district is to implement the GMP by permitting nonresidentiallandusesasgenerallyidentifiedintheurbandesignationofthefuture land use element. These uses can be characterized as public facilities,institutional uses, OPEN SPACE uses, recreational uses, water-related or dependent uses, and other such uses generally serving the community at large. The dimensional standards are intended to ensure COMPATIBILITY with existing or future nearby residential DEVELOPMENT . The CF district is limited to properties within the urban mixed use land use designation as identified on the future land use map.2. 03.05 OPEN SPACE Zoning District A. Golf Course District "GC". The purpose and intent of "GC" district is to provide lands for golf courses and normal ACCESSORY USES to golf courses, including certain uses of a commercial nature. The GC district shall be in accordance with the ~rban mixed use district and the agricultural rural district of the future land. use element of the Collier County GMP. I B. Conservation District "CON". The purpose and intent of the conservation district "CON" is to conserve,protect, and maintain vital natural resource lands within unincorporated Collier County that are owned primarily by the public. All native habitats possess ecological and physical characteristics that justify attempts to maintain these important natural resources. Barrier Islands, coastal bays, WETLANDS, and habitat for listed species deserve particular attention because of their ecological value and their sensitivity to perturbation. All proposals for DEVELOPMENT in the CON District must be subject to rigorous review to ensure that the impacts of the DEVELOPMENT do not destroy or unacceptably degrade the inherent functional values. The CON district includes such public lands as Everglades National Park, Big Cypress National Preserve, Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge, portions of the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concem, Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve,Collier- Seminole State Park, Rookery Bay National Estuarine Sanctuary Research Reserve, Delnor-Wiggins State Park, and the National Audubon' s Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary (privately owned), and C.R.E.W. It is the intent of the CON district to require review of all DEVELOPMENT proposed within the CON district to ensure that the inherent value of the County1s natural resources is not destroyed or unacceptably ALTERED. The CON district corresponds to and implements the conservation land use designation on the future land use map of the Collier County GMP. 265265 266 267 Exhibit N 268268 950 Encore Way Naples, FL. 34110 Phone: (239) 254-2000 Florida Certificate of Authorization No.1772 SITE PLAN 269 Exhibit O 270270 A56789I- ~ '0 f? L- lIAR 3lOB J ~ l R[C[IVfD j W e .~" C' E'G' ZZ Vl. 0''' ORDINANCE NO. 08-~ AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY PROVIDING FOR: SECTION ONE, RECITALS; SECTION TWO, FINDINGS OF FACT; SECTION THREE, ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, MORE SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FOLLOWING: CHAPTER 1 - GENERAL PROVISIONS, INCLUDING SECTION 1.08.02 DEFINITIONS; CHAPTER 2 - ZONING DISTRICTS AND USES, INCLUDING SECTION 2.01.03 ESSENTIAL SERVICES, REORGANIZATION OF SECTION 2.03.00 ZONING DISTRICTS, SECTION 2.03.01 RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, SECTION 2.03.02 COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, SECTION 2.03.03 INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, SECTION 2.03.04 CIVIC AND INSTITUTIONAL ZONING DISTRICTS, SECTION 2.03.05 OPEN SPACE ZONING DISTRICT, SECTION 2.03.06 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS, SECTION 2.03.07 OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICTS, SECTION 2.03.09 DISTRICTS UNDER MORATORIUM, REDISTRIBUTING CONTENTS OF SECTION 2.04.00, PERMISSABLE, CONDITIONAL, AND ACCESSORY USES IN ZONING DISTRICTS, DELETING SECTION 2.04.03 TABLE OF LAND USES IN EACH ZONING DISTRICT; CHAPTER 5 _ SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS, INCLUDING SECTION 5.06.04 SIGN STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC SITUATIONS; CHAPTER 10 - APPLICATION, REVIEW AND DECISION- MAKING PROCEDURES, INCLUDING SECTION 10.02.02 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL APPLICATIONS; SECTION FOUR, CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; SECTION FIVE, PUBLICATION AS THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; AND SECTION SIX, EFFECTIVE DATE. 1 c- Recitals p::; WHEREAS, on October 30, 1991, the Collier County Board of>::::: n-"'~ County Commissioners adopted Ordinance No. 91-102, the COlli~~;' County Land Development Code (hereinafter LDC), which wain '0, subsequently amended; and ~i:.: c,....,WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of County Commissione~"'" Board) on June 22, 2004, adopted Ordinance No. 04-41, which repealed and superseded Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which had an effective date of October 18, 2004; and WHEREAS, the LDC may not be amended more than two times in each calendar year unless additional amendment cycles are approved by the Collier County Board of Commissioners pursuant to Section 10.02.09 A. of the LDC; and WHEREAS, this is the second amendment to the LDC for the calendar year 2007; and Page I of 134 Words slruek threugh are deleted, words underlined are added U I - W .~ r,;b m R C1 CJl N 271271 d. Food stores (5411--5499). over 5.000 sauare feet. e. Motion picture theaters (7832). L Outdoor dinina areas. not directly abuttina the Golden Gate Parkway riaht-of-wav. L Prohibited uses. Prohibited uses within the GGDCCO include the uses listed below: New residential-only structures b. Any commercial use employina drive-up. drive-in or drive- throuah deliverv of aoods or services. c. Sexually oriented businesses (Code of Laws. 26-151 et P. Copeland Zoning Overlay (CZO) 2.03.08 Rural Fringe Zoning Districts SUBSECTION 3.J.AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 2.03.09 DISTRICTS UNDER MORATORIUM [RESERVED] Section 2.03.09 Districts Under Moratorium [Reserved], of Ordinance 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.03.09 Distrists URlIer MOFatoFium [Resen:ellJ Open Space Zoning Districts A. Golf Course District "GC". The purpose and intent of "GC" district is to provide lands for golf courses and normal accessory uses to aolf courses. includino certain uses of a commercial nature. The GC district shall be in accordance with the urban mixed use district and the aaricultural rural district of the future land use element of the Collier County GMP. 1. The followina subsections identify the uses that are permissible by riaht and the uses that are allowable as accessory or conditional uses in the RMF-6 district. a. Permitted uses. 1. Golf courses. b. Accessorv Uses. 1. Uses and structures that are accessorv and incidental to uses permitted as of riaht in the GC district. 2. Recreational facilities that serve as an intearal part of the permitted use. includina but not limited to clubhouse. community center buildina. practice drivina ranae. shuffleboard courts. swimmina pools and tennis facilities. snack shops and restrooms. Page 128 of 134 Words struek Ihfeugh are deleted, words underlined are added 272272 3. Pro shops with eauipment sales. no areater than 1.000 sauare feet. 4. Restaurants with a seatina capacity of 150 seats or less provided that the hours of operation are no later than 10:00 p.m. 5. A maximum of two residential dwellinas units for use by oolf course employees in coni unction with the operation of the aolf course. c. Conditional uses. The followina uses are permissible as conditional uses in the GC district. subiect to the standards and provisions established in section 10.08.00. 1. Commercial establishments oriented to the permitted uses of the district includina aift shops: pro shops with eauipment sales in excess of 1.000 sauare feet: restaurants with seatina capacity of oreater than 150 seats: cocktail lounaes. and similar uses. primarilv intended to serve patrons of the aolf course. L Conservation District "CON". The purpose and intent of the conservation district "CON" is to conserve. protect and maintain vital natural resource lands within unincorporated Collier Countv that are owned primarilv bv the public. All native habitats possess ecoloaical and physical characteristics that iustify attempts to maintain these important natural resources. Barrier islands. coastal bays. wetlands. and habitat for listed species deserve particular attention because of their ecoloaical value and their sensitivity to perturbation. All proposals for development in the CON district must be subiect to riaorous review to ensure that the impacts of the development do not destroy or unacceptably dearade the inherent functional values. The CON District includes such public lands as Everalades National Park. Bia Cypress National Preserve. Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuae. portions of the Bia Cypress Area of Critical State Concern. Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve. Collier- Seminole State Park. Rookerv Bay National Estuarine Sanctuary Research Reserve. Delnor-Wiaains State Park. and the National Audubon's Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuarv (privately owned). and C.R.E.W. It is the intent of the CON District to reauire review of all development proposed within the CON District to ensure that the inherent value of the County's natural resources is not destroyed or unacceptably altered. The CON District corresponds to and implements the conservation land use desianation on the future land use map of the Collier County GMP. L Allowable uses. The followina uses are allowed in the CON District a. Permitted uses. 1. On priyately held land only. sinole family dwellina units. and mobile homes where the Mobile Home Zonina Overlay exists. 2. On publicly and privately held lands onlv. dormitories. duplexes and other types of housina. as may be incidental to. and in support of. conservation uses. 3. Passive parks. and other passive recreational uses. includina. but not limited to: ID Open space and recreational uses: Ql Bikina. hikino. canoeina. and nature trails: Page 129 of 134 Words .true" through are deleted, words underlined are added 273273 Exhibit P 274 Growth Management Community Development Department - Zoning Division September 12, 2025 Zach Lombardo, Esq. Woodward, Pires & Lombardo, P.A, 3200 Tamiami Trail N. Suite 200, Naples, FL 34103 RE: INTP-PL20250007902, Height limitation for golf course containment fencing within the Golf Course Zoning District, per Sections 2.03.09.A, 4.02.02 and 5.03.02 of the Collier County Land Development Code. This request applies to all Golf Course Zoning Districts within the County. Dear Mr. Lombardo: Pursuant to Land Development Code (LDC) Section 1.06.01.D, the Planning and Zoning Director has been requested to render an official interpretation of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC), for Quail Creek Golf Course PL20250007902. The official interpretation centers upon “the height limitations for accessory uses within the Golf Course Zoning District ". Further within the request you provide the following questions and analysis (designated in italics) pertinent to those questions for the County to consider in our response. 1. Please confirm the Golf Course and Recreational Use District does not have a height limit for the practice driving range accessory use and thus that a containment fence for a practice driving range can be 62.81 feet (actual height) tall by right at the Subject Property consistent with the two similarly situated golf courses in Collier County. In the GC District a practice driving range is an accessory use. 2.03.09.A.1.b.2., LDC (“Recreational facilities that serve as an integral part of a golf course use, including but not limited to clubhouse, community center building, practice driving range, shuffleboard courts, swimming pools and tennis facilities, snack shops and restrooms.”) (Emphasis added). Response: Section 1.03.01.D (Exhibit “A”) of the LDC provides, “In the interpretation and application of any provision of these regulations, it shall be held to be the minimum requirement adopted for the promotion of the public health, safety, comfort, convenience, and general welfare. Where any provision of these regulations, the GMP, or any other law or regulation in effect in Collier County, Florida, imposes greater restrictions upon the subject matter than any other provision of these regulations, the GMP, or any other law or regulation in effect in Collier County, Florida, the provision imposing the greater restriction or regulation shall be deemed to be controlling. Section 5.03.02.A (Exhibit “B”) of the LDC states, “Fences or walls shall be permitted principal uses in all districts, subject to the restrictions set forth in this section, unless specifically exempted; however, a 275 fence or wall shall not, in any way, constitute a use or which permits, requires, and/or provides for any accessory uses and/or structures.” Section 4.02.01.A (Table 2, Exhibit “C”) of the LDC states that the maximum building height within the Golf Course Zoning District is 35 feet. As noted Section 5.03.02.A declares that fences or walls shall be permitted principle uses in all districts (which includes the Golf course Zoning District) and 4.02.01.A (Table 2) imposes a 35 -foot height limitation within the Golf Course Zoning District. Therefore, the determination of the Zoning Director is that a fence or wall, while not addressed specifically within Section 5.03.02, would be limited to the maximum of 35 feet within a Golf Course Zoning District. It should be noted that 5.03.02.E states, “Fences and walls within agricultural districts shall be exempt from height and type of construction. “ This is the only reference Staff could identify within the section that provides unlimited height to a fence or wall . The applicant’s assertion that a golf course containment fence, while not expressly exempted from a zoning district’s height limitations within the LDC, is allowed to any height without restriction would appear to conflict with Section 1.03.01.D o f the LDC. 2. Alternatively, or in addition to the above, a containment fence at a practice driving range is not a structure and is not regulated by any height limit and thus that a containment fence for a practice driving range can be 62.81 feet (actual height) tall by right at the Subject Property consistent with the nine similarly situated golf courses in Collier County. The LDC, in section 1.08.02, defines structure as “Structure: Anything constructed or erected which requires a fixed location on the ground, or in the ground, or attached to something having a fixed location on or in the ground, including buildings, towers, smokestacks, utility poles, and overhead transmission lines. Fences and walls, gates or posts are not intended to be structures.” (Emphasis added.) The dimensional standards in the GC District, unless otherwise noted, apply to structures and thus not fences. Response: As stated within the first response, Section 4.02.01.A (Table 2) of the LDC states that the maximum building height within the Golf Course Zoning District is 35 feet for principle uses. As shown Below: 276 Section 5.03.02.A declares that fences or walls shall be permitted principal uses in all districts. The clear and unambiguous combination of these two sections is that the maximum height limitation in the Golf Course Zoning District for a principal use is 35-feet. Pursuant to Division 10.02.02.F. of the LDC, this interpretation has been sent to you via certified mail, return receipt requested. A copy of this interpretation and appeal time frames will be placed in the Collier Legal Notices website. Within 30 days of publication of the public notice, any affected property owner or aggrieved or adversely affected party may appeal the interpretation to the Office of the Hearing Examiner, as directed by Section 2-87 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. A request for an appeal must be filed in writing within 30 days of the date of this Official Interpretation and must state the basis for the appeal and include any pertinent information, exhibits, or other back- up information in support of the appeal. The appeal must be accompanied by a $1,000.00 application and processing fee. If payment is in the form of a check, it should be made out to the Collier County Board of Commissioners. An appeal can be hand delivered or mailed to my attention at the address provided. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any further questions on this matter. The Exhibits are available at 2800 North Horseshoe Dr., Naples, FL 34104. Attention: Mike Bosi. Sincerely, Mike Bosi, AICP, Director, Zoning Growth Management Community Development Division/Zoning Cc: Collier County Board of County Commissioners Amy Patterson, County Manager Ed Finn, Deputy County Manager Jamie French, Head, Growth Management Department Jeff Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Assistant County Attorney 277 Exhibit Q 278278 279 280 281 282 283 Exhibit R 284284 Homeowners’ proposed LDC amendment 35 ft. Top of barrier (Trees planted in front of each pole) Sheer, lightweight netting: poles can be farther apart, no sag 60 ft. between poles 35 ft. 35 ft. 35 ft. 35 ft. 35 ft. 35 ft. Ground 285285 Club proposed LDC amendment—New Language moves palms away from poles, adds two 12’ trees 70 ft. 70 ft. Top of barrier Ground 20 ft. No requirement for lighter netting: netting will sag, partitions required 12 ft. 286286 Exhibit S 287287 288 Exhibit T 289289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 Exhibit U 301301 302 303 304 305 306 307 Exhibit V 308308 309 310 311 312 313 Exhibit W 314314 March 14, 2017 SECOND HEARING — APPROVED; MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION RELATING TO THE WATER MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS AND MOVE IT FORWARD TO THE SECOND HEARING — APPROVED MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we're moving to Item 9A on your agenda, and this is a recommendation to consider an amendment to your Collier County Land Development Code this evening. We have two amendments to present. The first has to do with an amendment regarding conversion of golf courses and the second amendment, which I don't imagine all these people are here for, has to do with some minor changes in your stormwater management system. So we'll, obviously, want to begin this evening first with your Land Development Code having to do with conversion of golf courses. Mr. Bosi, your zoning director, will begin the presentation this evening. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Very good. Thank you. MR. BOSI: Good evening, Commissioners. Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director. Just a few introductory comments -- MR. OCHS: Speak up. MR. BOSI: Just a few introductory comments before I introduce Caroline and our LDC team that's going to go over the specifics of the Land Development Code proposal. A year ago the Board of County Commissioners adopted a moratorium related to conversion of golf courses based upon a number of courses signaling an intent to convert from their current use as a golf course. The Board recognized at that time that golf courses have a unique presence within the built environment. There's a vested interest, there's a vested sense of place that is conveyed with a golf course and, Page 123 315 March 14, 2017 because of that recognition, I think it's probably confirmed with the attendance of tonight's crowd; that there was a need for additional process, additional communication, and additional dialogue to facilitate the proper conversion or the options for conversion of a golf course, and that's what these amendments are truly based upon. They're based on a proactive strategy that requires, before any application is submitted to the Board of County Commissioners, that there's going to be conversation between the community, the stakeholders, the golf course owner, and the community. That's the premise. The research that Caroline and the team has done she'll expand upon, but what she's found is that the more proactive we are in addressing these issues before an application is submitted, the better the outcomes of these proposals normally will be. And with that, I'll introduce Caroline, and she'll be able to highlight the -- highlight the aspects of the amendment. MS. CILEK: Thank you. Good evening, Commissioners. Caroline Cilek with Collier County's Growth Management Department. And before I begin, I just want to say thanks to all the staff and the advisory boards that participated in this amendment process as well as thank you to you all for being here tonight. As the chairperson said, we appreciate you being involved in this process. So to reiterate a little bit about what Mr. Bosi said, in the spring of 2016, the Board discussed the potential for golf course conversion in the county. During the discussion, the Board provided several considerations and a couple of concerns that they had about the potential for conversion. A summary of these main points is: One, that golf courses are valuable resources of open space in the county and that the process and design standards need to address how to preserve this resource to a Page 124 316 March 14, 2017 reasonable extent; Two, that the property owners surrounding a golf course purchased their homes with the expectation that they would have a golf course view in perpetuity, and if this view amenity is lost to a conversion project, that there may be a potential loss in property value; And, three, a recognition that neighborhoods that surround golf courses should be involved in a conversion process. Following the discussion, the Board did implement a six-month moratorium, and in September of last year staff came back and requested an extension for an additional six months to complete the public vetting process. At that time we presented a research paper that detailed what we had found at that time. The moratorium extends until next month, April 11th, 2017. Research and findings: This amendment is the result of a lot of thoughtful and thorough research conducted over several months. Much of this research was documented in that research paper we presented to the Board in September of last year, and our research included reviewing lots of municipal codes, Comprehensive Plans across the state of Florida, as well as reviewing academic resources, and we spoke to countless planners that had encountered conversion projects in their local communities, and we learned from them about those experiences. The vast majority of what we're presenting here today is based on our research and what we found in those other communities and those case studies and those examples. So a couple of the things that we did identify: First is that conversions are happening. There is a lot of conversions going on on the east coast of Florida which provided really valuable insight for us. We found that obtaining early insight from the residents that surround the golf course is very important to the approval process. Basically it opened up the ability for them to build consensus, the stakeholders that Page 125 317 March 14, 2017 surround the golf course and the property owner/applicant for the conversion project. In key studies where the surrounding residents were not included early in the development process, the approval process, meaning the process going through the Board's review and approval, often became lengthy, contentious, and sometimes litigious, which is not in the best interest of the neighborhoods surrounding the golf course, the developer, or the county. So this amendment does present a very robust structure for collaboration and documentation for a conversion project. And we recognize that many land use professionals may actually do some of these things that we're going to be presenting to you naturally, but it's always good to have them as a structure in the LDC as well. So I'd like to next go through two of the main concepts that we're presenting today. The first are stakeholder outreach meetings. So the applicant would be required to do or hold or conduct two stakeholder outreach meetings. The stakeholder outreach meeting is intended to be a collaborative environment in a transparent process where the applicant would conduct activities to engage the stakeholders, those that live around the golf course, and solicit input and feedback from them to help them inform their conversion project. There are some benefits to this meeting. It would hold all parties accountable in being reasonable. It is a transparent process in that following both the meetings the applicant would prepare a report that would be then reviewed and analyzed by staff, then the Planning Commission, and then the board. So it is providing the Board information to make a decision. I think it is important to note that the stakeholder outreach meeting is more robust than a neighborhood information meeting, which is something that we're all pretty familiar with, and that's because the impact of a golf course conversion is so great. Page 126 318 March 14, 2017 The next main concept that I want to speak to you about is the 100-foot greenway. A greenway is defined in the our amendment as a contiguous strip of undeveloped land that would include passive recreational areas. This could be like the pictures illustrate, a multi-use walking path, it could be a playground, or it could be simply open space, green space. And the purpose of the greenway would be to retain open space views for the residents that surround the golf course prior to a conversion project. This standard does address one of the Board's main concerns that they discussed last spring in that it would help to retain the property values or potential loss in property values due to a conversion project. This requirement of a greenway also would retain preserves that are located in the greenway as well as existing vegetation that many are -- enjoy looking out from their backyards; they would see those trees. Those would be retained as well. One last note about the greenway is that it does come from looking at case studies and examples of projects that have occurred in Florida previously. So we wanted to see what a 100-foot greenway would look like on several golf courses in the county, and those maps are included in your packet today. Here is an example. And as you can see here, this would be a reasonable and appropriate application of a greenway; however, we recognize that not all cases that this would -- that a 100-foot greenway would be appropriate, and so we have incorporated some flexibility into the proposed LDC amendment that would allow an applicant to propose an alternative design for the greenway, vet that with the stakeholders at the stakeholder outreach meetings, and then present that to the Board, and the Board would make the decision on whether that was an appropriate greenway design. Next I'd like to get into the conversion process and what steps Page 127 319 March 14, 2017 would be required. So first the applicant would come forward, and like any other application today, they would have a pre-application meeting with the county, and there they're sharing what they are hoping to do with this conversion project with county staff. The next would be an intent-to-convert application. This would be a new application, but it is designed to thoroughly vet and analyze the proposed conversion project. This application includes three or four main concepts. The first would be alternatives. One of the alternatives that we're requiring the applicant to pursue is to reach out to existing property owners' associations and see if they're interested in purchasing some or all of the golf course. The next one would be county purchase. The next alternative would be the development -- a conceptual development plan where they would lay out what their idea is for the conversion project. In addition, this application requires that encumbrances on the land are identified so that everyone is aware of what those are. And last is that we are including a mailed notice as a part of this application so that the stakeholders are informed very early in the process that there is someone intending to convert the golf course. The next step would be the stakeholder outreach meetings, and there the applicant would engage the stakeholders in activities to solicit input and feedback on their proposed plans and then, following both of those meetings, they would be required to present a report documenting what occurred there, what questions the stakeholders had, and input the stakeholders provided. That report would then be analyzed by staff at the next step through the more traditional rezone PUD amendment or perhaps even a stewardship receiving area amendment as well. The last possibility for the conversion project would be for a compatibility design review. This would be a new process that we're Page 128 320 March 14, 2017 proposing today, and it would address those golf courses that have a golf course as a permitted use as well as residential as a permitted use. And in this case we would have the Planning Commission and the Board weigh in on the design of the conversion project rather than the use because the use is already permitted by right, and so they would get to make sure that it is compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So let me just interrupt. So in some cases the use is not an underlining zoning on a golf courses; in some cases it is. MS. CILEK: Correct. There are golf courses out there. There are golf courses that are zoned residential and actually just have a golf course on them. They're very small, and there's very few of them, and there's a map in the binder, and there are very few PUDs, P-U-Ds, that have residential as a permitted use, and so this process would be specific to those. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. MS. CILEK: Okay. In conclusion, I just want to wrap up by saying that, as Mr. Bosi mentioned, golf courses are a unique land use, and so we feel that because they are unique, they rise to a certain level of review by staff, for stakeholder input, and for an elevated review by the Board. Our robust process provides information to decision makers so that you all can make an informed decision, and our process requires early stakeholder involvement so that the meat of the conversation with stakeholders can happen prior to the land use petition at the board level so a lot of it is hashed out and agreed upon before it gets to you. And we have presented several development standards to preserve open space views for existing residential properties around a golf course. And with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions. Page 129 321 Exhibit X 322322 323 324 Exhibit X-1 325325 326 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 327 Exhibit Y Attachment 7: Exhibit Y- 03-24-2025 CWard Quail Creek Golf Club - Variance Application - Planning Expert Opinion and Curriculum Vitae 328 EXPERT PLANNING REVIEW AND OPINION REVIEW OF THE QUAIL CREEK COUNTRY CLUB HEIGHT VARIANCE APPLICATION 13300 Vale wood Drive, Naples, Collier County VARIANCE APPLICATION NO. PL-20250001380 – dated 12 FEB 2025 March 24, 2025 PREPARED BY: CECELIA WARD, AICP President JC CONSULTING ENTERPRISES, INC. 6442 34 Place Vero Beach, FL 32966 cward@jcconsultinginc.net PREPARED FOR THE FOLLOWING QUAIL CREEK HOMEOWNERS: • Letitia & Frank Accarino - 13057 Coco Plum Lane • Becky & Cory Hundley- 13033 Coco Plum Lane • Chad & Natasha Commers- 13156 Valewood Drive • Lucille Wetlaufer, Mariam Gulistan - 13002 Valewood Drive • Goldie and Kenneth Wetcher- 13024 Valewood Drive • Fahmida Rahman-13056 Valewood Drive 329329 | Page 2 Table of Contents Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 3 Executive Summary - Findings and Conclusions ................................................................................ 3 Background ............................................................................................................................ 3 Planning Analysis - Variance Review Criteria .......................................................................... 5 330330 | Page 3 Introduction I, Cecelia Ward, AICP, President of JC Consulting Enterprises, Inc., hereby provide this planning and zoning opinion in response to a request from Quail Creek Country Club (“the Club”) located at 13300 Valewood Drive, Naples, Collier County (“the County”) FL 34119. This opinion addresses the sufficiency of representations made in the Quail Creek Country Club (the “Applicant”) Variance Application (PL-20250001380) dated 12 FEB 2025 (the “Application”). The Application requests a variance from a dimensional development structural height standard as authorized by the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) at §9.04.02 - Types of Variances Authorized. Executive Summary - Findings and Conclusions My professional opinion is that the Application lacks both the requisite subject matter expert opinion and competent substantial evidence that is otherwise necessary to justify its approval. Instead, the record demonstrates that Applicant’s unilateral actions created the self-inflicted hardship, from which it now requests variance relief from the County. Therefore, the Application should be denied since approving it would directly violate both the County’s Land Development Code (“LDC”) and Growth Management Plan (“GMP”) standards and criteria. This opinion is based upon a review of the statements and representations made in the Application regarding the standards and criteria contained in the County’s LDC, specifically Chapter 4. Site Design and Development Standards, §4.02.01 A, Table 2. Building Dimension Standards for Principal Uses in Base Zoning Districts. Table 2. stipulates a maximum building height of 35 feet within the GC Golf Course zoning district. This maximum height standard also applies to structures. This opinion is further based upon substantial background documentation provided by the Quail Creek homeowners that is also part of the record. Background Quail Creek Estates features 291 residences and surrounds the Quail Creek Country Club. Collectively, they comprise approximately 640 acres in north Naples, Florida, and are the subject of this opinion. The County’s LDC governs this development and includes two relevant land use designations for this development: the Urban Mixed-Use District and the Urban Residential Subdistrict. The LDC defines these uses in Chapter 2, Zoning Districts and Uses at §2.03.09-A. The Golf Course and Recreational Use “GC” District includes golf courses and driving ranges as permitted and accessory uses. Adjacent land uses include Urban - Mixed Use and Urban Residential Subdistrict. Zoning and uses for all parcels adjoining the Club are summarized below: 331331 | Page 4 • North: Zoned GC, developed with a golf course and recreational uses; zoned RSF-2, developed with single-family dwellings • South: Zoned RSF-2, developed with single-family dwellings • East: Zoned RSF-2, developed with single-family dwellings • West: Zoned RSF-2, developed with single-family dwellings The Quail Creek Country Club was established in 1981, featuring a design that positioned the driving range adjacent to the fairway of Hole 10 on the Creek Course in accordance with the Club’s approved site plan. The Creek Course is one of two courses on the property, collectively comprising thirty-six (36) holes under the Club’s ownership. For over forty-three (43) years, the Club utilized this original driving range alignment with Hole 10 in their intended functions. In the spring of 2024; however, the Club constructed a barrier netting structure between the driving range and Hole 10, citing safety concerns following an incident where a range ball struck a golfer on Hole 10. The Club initiated this construction without obtaining required County plan approvals or building permits and hired an unlicensed contractor. Between 2013 and 2020, the Club systematically removed numerous trees that previously served as a protective buffer between the Creek #10 fairway and the driving range. These tree and vegetation removals were also conducted without first obtaining County review and permit approvals as amendments to the Club’s approved Site Management Plan, and without consulting adjacent residential property owners. Following the removal of these trees, portions of the cleared area were repurposed to accommodate additional golfer activity. In 2016, the Club established a new chipping area adjacent to the right side of the original tee box ("Original Tee Box"), which is aligned with Hole 10. This modification resulted in an increased concentration of golf shots in proximity to the Hole 10 fairway. Subsequently, between 2017 and 2018, the Club installed an additional driving range tee box ("New Tee Box") directly opposite the Original Tee Box. These alterations were also made without adjacent resident input or requisite County permits. The placement of the New Tee Box is in close proximity to residential properties along Coco Plum Lane and places the homes within the flight trajectory of golf shots originating from this location. While nominally designated for youth golf instruction, the New Tee Box is frequently utilized by adult golfers as well. Previously, the club installed a 12-foot-high netting fence and a four-foot berm between Hole 10 and the driving range, again without securing the required approvals or permits from the County. The Club has not adequately maintained this fencing infrastructure, contributing to increased safety concerns on Hole 10. By early 2024, the fencing exhibited significant structural deterioration, with visible gaps and sagging sections. Following the impact of hurricanes in late 2024, these deficiencies worsened, but repairs were not undertaken. 332332 | Page 5 Despite the Club’s assertions regarding safety concerns, both Hole 10 and the driving range continue to operate without restriction or mitigation measures to address the ongoing hazards. The Club submitted a permit application on May 23, 2024, proposing a development plan that included additional structural elements beyond those initially constructed. These elements included eight-foot-wide, one-and-a-half-foot-high square concrete platforms surrounding each 60-foot pole. On June 6, 2024, local residents formally objected to the permit application in a written statement addressed to James French and Chris Hall, Commissioner of District 2. On June 28, 2024, the County’s Growth Management Department issued an order (the “June 28 Order”) denying the permit application and determining that a variance is required for the construction of any golf course structure exceeding the 35-foot height limit. Despite the issuance of the June 28, 2024, Order, the Club continued to utilize its driving range and Hole 10 facilities without modification for several months. In September 2024, the Club’s planner contacted the Zoning Division, referencing examples of other County golf courses—Hibiscus and Imperial—where barriers exceeded the 35-foot height limit. These barriers had been installed for the protection of residential properties adjacent to the driving ranges. The Club similarly sought to justify its Structure as a protective measure for nearby residences. Subsequently, in an email dated October 23, 2024, the Zoning Division determined that a variance would not be required. In response, Quail Creek homeowners filed an administrative appeal challenging the County staff’s determination, submitting their appeal narrative on November 20, 2024. During the appeal process, it was established that neither the Hibiscus nor the Imperial golf courses had obtained permits for their barriers. As a result, in early December 2024, the Zoning Division reinstated the June 28 Order, requiring that the Club apply for the height variance. The Club did not immediately pursue a variance following the reinstatement. It was not until Code Enforcement scheduled a March 7, 2025, hearing on the Notice of Violation that the Club initiated the variance application process on January 31, 2025. The formal application documents were subsequently filed on February 12, 2025. Planning Analysis - Variance Review Criteria Zoning regulations, as established through legislative authority, are designed to promote orderly development, preserve neighborhood character, and protect property values. These regulations fall within the scope of the municipality’s police power and serve to ensure cohesive land use planning. A variance is a discretionary approval that grants relief from specific zoning requirements, allowing a property owner to develop in a manner that would otherwise be prohibited by such land use regulations. An application for a variance must comply with all of the criteria as set forth in Section 9.0 4.03 Criteria for Variances of the Collier County LDC. 333333 | Page 6 The following planning analysis of each of the variance review criteria demonstrates that the variance requested by the Club is not permissible under the County’s LDC in that the Club has not sufficiently demonstrated compliance with any of the eight applicable variance criteria, all of which must be met for approval. A. Are there special conditions and circumstances existing which are peculiar to the location, size and characteristics of the land, structure or building involved? Planning Analysis: No. The subject property is a relatively flat and level parcel of land with no special conditions or circumstances existing which are peculiar to the location, size, and characteristics of the land. Further, there no distinguishing physical characteristics that would impede its suitability for golf- related or other uses. In fact, the driving range and Hole 10, adjacent to the range, have been in continuous operation for their intended purpose since 1981. The design and layout of the golf course are the result of the Applicant’s own planning decisions and were not dictated by any inherent constraints of the land itself. The only distinctive "structure" in this case is the one the Club attempted to construct without obtaining the necessary permit. The Club asserts, without substantiating evidence, this partially installed 60-foot Barrier Structure is the sole means of providing protection from errant balls. However, this assertion is not pertinent to the determination of whether the property possesses unique physical characteristics that warrant the granting of a variance. B. Are there special conditions and circumstances which do not result from the action of the applicant, such as pre-existing conditions relative to the property which is the subject of this variance request? Planning Analysis: No, there are no unique physical characteristics of the property. The Applicant has not demonstrated, nor does the land exhibit, any distinguishing features that would warrant special consideration. The presence of neighboring residences is not an uncommon condition, and the Club intentionally designed and developed the golf course on this site. The alleged "safety" concern arises as a direct result of the Club's own lack of planning and design choices. Furthermore, any claim of hardship or special circumstance must not be self-imposed. In this case, the hardship was created by the Club’s own actions in multiple instances. Planning Analysis of Self-Imposed Hardship in Relation to Variance Request The applicant’s claimed hardship is fully self-imposed in multiple respects: 1. Site Selection and Initial Design – The applicant elected to acquire property adjacent to residential areas, a common land-use pattern in Collier County. The applicant 334334 | Page 7 independently designed its golf course, including the placement of its driving range adjacent to one of its fairways. The current assertion that relocating the driving range is “impossible” or financially burdensome does not constitute a valid hardship under zoning regulations, as economic hardship is not a determining factor in variance approvals. The existence of a driving range is not a mandatory component of a golf course. 2. Modification of Natural Barriers – The applicant originally incorporated a tree buffer between the driving range and Hole 10 as part of the golf course design, providing a natural safety barrier. Over time, the applicant removed these trees and replaced them with hitting areas and minimal vegetation, thereby eliminating the protective buffer. The removal of these natural barriers contributed to the current safety concerns, which are a direct result of the applicant’s own land-use decisions. 3. Changes in Golf Ball Usage – The applicant discontinued the use of self-limiting golf balls, which previously reduced the trajectory and distance of balls struck from the driving range. This change contributed to an increased likelihood of stray balls entering adjacent fairways and residential areas. [Refer to Photo File 9- Golf Balls, showing self-limiting balls collected by Coco Plum residents, submitted into the record by Coco Plum and Valewood residents.] 4. Addition of Short Game Hitting Area – The applicant further intensified use impacts by introducing a short game hitting area at the top of Hole 10, increasing the number of errant shots directed toward the fairway. This modification represents a self-imposed change that exacerbates the existing safety concerns. 5. Unpermitted Construction of Barrier – The applicant installed a 60-foot barrier without obtaining the required permits, without engaging a licensed contractor, and without providing notice or opportunity for input from affected property owners. Should the variance be denied, the applicant will be required to remove the unpermitted structure at its own cost, which is a direct result of its failure to adhere to permitting requirements. The financial implications of such removal do not constitute a valid hardship under the variance criteria and should not be considered as justification for retroactive approval. Given these factors, the applicant's request for a variance is based on conditions that were self- imposed through deliberate design choices and modifications to the site. The burden of compliance with zoning regulations rests with the applicant and should not be transferred to the surrounding community. C. Does a literal interpretation of the provisions of the LDC work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant or create practical difficulties on the applicant? Planning Analysis: No. The Applicant’s claim of hardship does not meet the County’s standard required for a variance. The Club asserts that the 35-foot height limitation renders the construction of an errant ball containment structure impossible. However, this restriction does not preclude the installation of a barrier entirely, as similar structures may be constructed at various heights within the applicable zoning regulations. Notably, the unlicensed contractor engaged by the Club advertises the 335335 | Page 8 capability to fabricate custom fencing at any height or dimension, further refuting the claim that compliance with zoning laws makes construction infeasible. Rather, the Club’s argument is specific to the barrier structure it has already begun installing. The height limitation of 35 feet does not prohibit the construction of an errant ball containment structure but does prevent the installation of the specific structure the Club has elected to build. The Applicant’s claim, therefore, is that the zoning regulation prevents this particular Barrier, not that the property itself has inherent characteristics necessitating a variance for reasonable use. For a variance to be granted, the Applicant must demonstrate an “exceptional and unique hardship” specific to this property that is not shared by other similarly situated properties. The hardship must prevent any reasonable use of the land without the variance. Additionally, Collier County’s zoning restrictions apply uniformly to all golf courses within the jurisdiction. As such, the Club’s situation does not constitute the unique hardship required to justify a variance. The Club’s primary issue is that if the variance is not approved, it will be required to dismantle the Barrier Structure. However, this does not amount to an “undue” or unwarranted hardship, as all construction projects undertaken without the proper permits inherently risk removal. Further, the Club asserts that without the variance, its only alternative would be to relocate the driving range, which it claims would necessitate a full redesign of the course and may not adequately protect the public. However, course design falls within the Club’s own purview and responsibility. The Club proceeded with this construction project without first obtaining County approvals or permits and without evaluating alternative solutions. Yet viable alternatives exist as noted by Stephen Eisenberg, a golf expert retained by the homeowners [Refer to Stephen Eisenberg Report submitted into the record by Coco Plum and Valewood residents.] Potential solutions include: • Redesigning or relocating Hole 10 within the existing course layout. • Using irons instead of woods and drivers. • Using self-limiting balls. • Replanting trees that were previously removed to serve as a natural barrier. • Adding an L-shaped barrier close to the main tee box to catch pushed and sliced balls. • Constructing a lower barrier that complies with zoning regulations and integrates visually with the landscape. The Club’s assertion that public safety is at risk is misleading, as the primary beneficiaries of the Barrier Structure are golfers using Hole 10 of this private club, not the general public. Given the availability of alternative, less intrusive solutions, the requested variance is neither justified nor warranted under zoning law and precedent. 336336 | Page 9 D. Will the variance be the minimum that would make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure and which will promote standards of health, safety, and welfare? Planning Analysis: No. The Applicant asserts that the minimum height of 60 feet is required to construct a containment fence for the safety of golf course patrons. However, this height is based on a barrier that has already been partially constructed, exceeding the established zoning limit by 25 feet. The Club has not presented sufficient evidence to substantiate the necessity of such a height or even the necessity of a barrier in general. There is no information provided regarding: • The specific location of incidents on Hole 10 where accidents have occurred. • The portion of the 850-foot length of the proposed barrier that is required to address the issue. • The justification for the proposed barrier’s excessive height. • Whether the proposed barrier will effectively resolve safety concerns. The engineers who prepared the plans for the Club’s permit application have indicated that they were not instructed to assess the required height of the barrier. In contrast, the golf expert hired by the homeowners has conducted a thorough evaluation of the situation and provided a report outlining alternative remedies that may prove more effective in addressing the safety concern, and that the proposed barrier is unlikely to serve its intended purpose, particularly with the planned tee expansion. [Refer to Stephen Eisenberg Report submitted into the record by the Coco Plum and Valewood residents.] E. Will granting the variance confer upon the Club any special privilege that is denied by these zoning regulations to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district? Planning Analysis: Yes. Granting the requested variance would confer a privilege upon the Club that is not available to other properties, buildings, or structures within the same zoning district. Zoning regulations are designed to ensure consistent and equitable standards for all properties within a district. Allowing this variance would create an exception to those standards, potentially providing the Club with a benefit that is not afforded to others within the same zone. Therefore, the variance could result in unequal treatment under the County’s zoning regulations, which may undermine the intent of maintaining uniformity and fairness within the district. 337337 | Page 10 F. Will granting the variance be in harmony with the intent and purpose of the LDC, and not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare? Planning Analysis: No. The Applicant is fully aware that granting this variance would result in significant adverse impacts on the neighborhood and the public welfare, primarily borne by the objecting homeowners. The Club has not provided any evidence to refute these potential harms, which in itself should be grounds to deny the application. The Club’s primary argument relies on citing two local golf clubs that installed barrier structures exceeding 35 feet in height at the end of their driving ranges, under entirely different circumstances and to address the specific needs of protecting the residents in those areas. The Applicant asserts that there was no harm to the neighborhood or public welfare in those cases but fails to substantiate this claim with evidence. Even if lesser harm occurred in those instances, it can be attributed to the fact that the fences at those locations were specifically designed to shield residents from errant balls on relatively short driving ranges, and were also well-camouflaged, mitigating their impact on the surrounding community. These examples presented by the Applicant are irrelevant. Neither of the two cited structures were permitted, nor did they obtain the necessary variances. Even if these clubs had received permits and variances, the barriers at those locations cannot serve as precedents for the current application. Prior variances do not establish a binding precedent or provide grounds for granting subsequent variance requests. Each variance must be evaluated on its own merits, independent of previous approvals. The Applicant also raises a point regarding the "setback" distances at Hibiscus and Imperial golf courses, claiming they are shorter than the proposed distance at Quail Creek. However, the distances at those clubs were determined solely based on functionality and not on any visual appropriateness, especially since no permits were obtained for those structures. The barriers at Hibiscus and Imperial were designed to protect residents, and the distance was tailored to stop errant golf balls from reaching nearby residences. In contrast, the proposed barrier at Quail Creek is intended to protect golfers, lying between Hole 10's fairway and the driving range. Therefore, the distance to adjoining residences at Quail Creek may be greater, but this does not lessen the negative visual impacts of the proposed structures and their compatibility with the adjoining residences. [Refer to Photo File 1-Damage, submitted into the record by Coco Plum and Valewood residents.] Regarding the compatibility of this partially constructed netting structure, generally, uses that deviate significantly in density, intensity, scale, and form or that could negatively impact surrounding land uses are deemed incompatible. The County should not support or approve this application unless it provides extraordinary measures to offset identified potential adverse impacts. 338338 | Page 11 The compatibility or incompatibility of a proposed, adjoining land use may be defined as follows: Compatibility: the characteristics of different uses or activities or design which allow them to be located near or adjacent to each other in harmony. Some elements affecting compatibility include height, scale, mass, and bulk of structures. Other characteristics include pedestrian or vehicular traffic, circulation, access, and parking impacts. Other important characteristics that affect compatibility are architecture, landscaping, lighting, noise, and odor. Compatibility does not mean “the same as”. Rather, compatibility refers to the sensitivity of development proposals in maintaining the character of existing development. Conflicting Land Use: The transfer over a property line of negative economic or environmental effects, including but not limited to traffic, noise, vibration, odor, dust, glare, pollution, mismatched land uses or density, height or mass, mismatched layout of adjacent uses, loss of privacy, and unsightly views1 The Application is inconsistent with Collier County LDC Compatibility and Compatibility Review Requirements: Both of these terms appear in the LDC 65+ times and are defined and made part of it at Chapter 1. General, §1.08.02 – Definitions as follows: Compatibility: A condition in which land uses or conditions can coexist in relative proximity to each other in a stable fashion over time such that no use or condition is unduly negatively impacted directly or indirectly by another use or condition. Compatibility review: A review pursuant to the Architectural and Site Design Standards contained within section 5.05.08 of the Land Development Code (LDC) in effect at the time SBR Letters of Compliance are requested and that pertains to issues of compatibility with surrounding uses, complimentary patterns of development and mitigation of negative impacts. The Compatibility Review will be limited to compatibility issues, external sidewalks and pathway connections, lighting, dumpster location and screening, and orientation of buildings and ancillary facilities. Clearly the intent of the LDC is to require an assessment of potential adverse impacts that could result from a property owner’s proposed actions on adjoining properties. This is confirmed at Chapter 10. Application Review and Decision-Making Procedures at §10.02.03(A) (1) Purpose - Requirements for Site Development, Site Improvement Plans and Amendments thereof, which states… This section is further intended to ensure that the proposed development complies with fundamental planning and design principles such as: consistency with the county's growth management plan; the layout, arrangement of buildings, architectural design and open spaces; the configuration of the traffic circulation system, including driveways, traffic calming devices, parking areas and emergency access; the availability and capacity of drainage and utility 1 A Planners Dictionary, PAS Report # 521/522, American Planning Association, Chicago, IL, 2004, page 243. 339339 | Page 12 facilities; and, overall compatibility with adjacent development within the jurisdiction of Collier County and consideration of natural resources and proposed impacts on those resources… The LDC further provides limited exemption from requirements for Site Development Plans and Site Improvement Plans at §10.02.03, A.3(d) for Accessory and Ancillary Facilities at golf courses. However, they are not exempt from other provisions of the LDC such as, but not limited to, landscaping, tree removal, development standards, and the submission requirements attendant to obtaining temporary use and building permits. Finally, the LDC further mandates the requirement for compatibility assessment of proposed construction activity at Chapter 2. Zoning Districts and Uses, §2.03.09 - Open Space Zoning Districts, (A). Golf Course and Recreational Use District "GC" when it states in part… …the purpose and intent of "GC" district is to provide lands for golf courses, recreational uses, and normal accessory uses, including certain uses of a commercial nature. Recreational uses should be compatible in scale and manner with residential land uses. The GC district shall be in accordance with the urban mixed-use district and the agricultural/rural mixed-use district of the future land use element of the Collier County GMP. All uses shall be subject to design standards established in LDC section 5.05.15 H, and other applicable LDC standards. Impact on adjacent existing single family residential homes: • To illustrate the visual impact of the proposed barrier structure, the residents have superimposed the planned netting onto the poles in some of the photographs, showing how the completed barrier structure would appear both from inside and outside the affected homes. See Photo File 12—Damage Photos with Netting Superimposed. • Additionally, "before" images have been provided to highlight the scenic views that these homes once enjoyed prior to the installation of the barrier structure. • From a functional viewpoint, construction of the proposed netting structure may have the ability to trap some errant balls and protect golfers when traversing or using Hole 10 or the driving range areas. • However, this variance application, as presented, ignores a key LDC compatibility requirement stated at Chapter 10. Application Review and Decision-Making Procedures at §10.02.03(A) (1). Namely, the Applicant fails to assess the compatibility of the proposed construction in relation to adjoining residential property owners and their homes. • Further, the Application fails to meet the standard for providing expert opinion and competent substantial evidence documenting how this proposed construction complies with required “fundamental planning and design principles.” G. Are there natural and physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and objectives of the regulation, such as natural preserves, lakes, golf course, etc.? Planning Analysis: No. The Applicant asserts that "the proposed containment structure is located near a row of mature vegetation, which provides additional screening of the poles." 340340 | Page 13 This claim is unsupported and misleading. A review of the residents submitted photographs reveals the inaccuracy of the Applicant’s statements. [Refer to Photo File 10-No Camouflage of Barrier, submitted into the record by Coco Plum an Valewood residents.] The so-called "mature vegetation" consists of a sparse line of short, scrubby palms located to one side of the poles. These will not provide any meaningful screening of the poles or the netting. Furthermore, many of these palms will need to be removed in order to accommodate the installation of the eight-foot concrete platforms around each pole. Additionally, a significant portion of the Barrier is situated on a recently added four-foot "berm," which increases the height of the structure, raising it to approximately 64 feet rather than the stated 60 feet. Photographic evidence clearly shows that the Barrier is uneven, further exacerbating its visual impact and making it even more intrusive. [Refer to Photo File 1-Damage, Coco Plum Lane Views-3.jpeg, 13056 Valewood Drive-14.jpeg, submitted into the record by Coco Plum and Valewood residents.] The Applicant also claims that "vegetation" behind adjacent lots provides screening, which is also inaccurate. As illustrated in the photographs provided by the residents there are a few narrow pine trunks behind two or three of the residential properties, but these will not conceal the netting if it is installed. [Refer to Photo File 10-No Camouflage of Barrier-12. Jpeg, -13.jpeg, submitted into the record by Coco Plum and Valewood residents.] Other residential properties lack any vegetation altogether. [Refer to Photo File 1-Damage, 13056 Valewood 2.jpeg, 13.jpeg, submitted into the record by Coco Plum and Valewood residents.] The permit application does not include any plans to incorporate camouflage landscaping to mitigate the visual impact of the Barrier from neighboring properties. The Applicant cannot rely on the existing landscaping on residential properties, many of which lack sufficient vegetation. Regardless, the size and height of the proposed Barrier would make it virtually impossible to conceal, creating a permanent visual nuisance for nearby residents. H. Will granting the variance be consistent with the GMP? Planning Analysis: No. Granting of the variance would be INCONSISTENT with the compatibility requirements of the County’s GMP as expressed in Implementation Strategy Goal II – Objective 1- Objective 5 - and Policy 5.6 as addressed in the response to question ”F”, above. II. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICY’S GOAL: TO GUIDE LAND USE DECISION-MAKING SO AS TO ACHIEVE AND MAINTAIN A HIGH QUALITY NATURAL AND HUMAN ENVIRONMENT WITH A WELL-PLANNED MIX OF COMPATIBLE LAND 341341 | Page 14 USES WHICH PROMOTE THE PUBLIC'S HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE CONSISTENT WITH STATE PLANNING REQUIREMENTS AND LOCAL DESIRES2 OBJECTIVE 1: Promote well planned land uses consistent with Future Land Use Designations, Districts and Subdistricts and the Future Land Use Map to ensure compatibility between the natural and human environments. OBJECTIVE 5: Implement land use policies that promote sound planning, protect environmentally sensitive lands and habitat for listed species while protecting private property rights, ensure compatibility of land uses and further the implementation of the Future Land Use Element Policy 5.6: New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004, and (XLIV) = Plan Amendment by Ordinance No. 2017-22 on June 13, 2017, 18 Future Land Use as of Ordinance No. 2024- 46, adopted on November 12, 2024, effective October 18, 2004, as amended) Applicant’s request for a dimensional variance from Collier County must meet the standard of providing expert opinion County to complete their compatibility review. This standard is included in the LDC at §10.02.03 - Requirements for Site Development, Site Improvement Plans and Amendments thereof. The application must assess issues related to the proposed variance’s compatibility with adjoining land uses – in this instance the adjoining, single-family residential use and assess whether the proposed netting system is complementary to the residential use. The evidence must also include a mitigation strategy that addresses identified potential negative impacts, In this instance, the evidence must assess and establish that the Applicant’s variance request must include an assessment of the proposed golf ball netting system in relation to surrounding residential land uses and make a finding that it represents a complementary pattern of development. The Applicant’s request does not address this standard at all. Further, the proposed plan must also identify and include a mitigation strategy to address identified adverse impacts resulting directly from the requested variance’s location, including a plan to increase landscape screening. This landscape mitigation must address the need to restore years of tree and vegetative removal and the resulting degradation of the visual and safety barrier between the residences and the golf course orientation of proposed improvements and/or accessory uses. The adjacent homeowners have identified substantial adverse visual and economic impacts to their properties resulting from the Applicant’s request, but the Application to-date remains silent on this matter. At a minimum, the missing evidence must address the proposed system’s 60-foot height in relation to both on-site and adjacent residential structures designed to less than half that height. In addition, the evidence must address the netting’s structural design, and the materials/finishes used in relation to the adjoining residential properties substantial architectural designs and materials. 2 Collier County Future Land Use Element as of Ordinance No. 2024-46, adopted on November 12, 2024. 342342 1 Cecelia Ward, AICP JC Consulting Enterprises, Inc. 18081 SE Country Club Drive, #313 Tequesta, Florida 33469 (954) 815-4298 As of 3.22.25 Cecelia Ward, AICP President JC Consulting Enterprises Inc. Experience Highlights • Over 40 years of experience in comprehensive planning, urban and regional planning, community area planning, land development codes and zoning regulations. • • 10 years of public sector planning and zoning experience. • • JC Consulting Enterprises, Inc., President, 2006 to present • Planning Commissioner Town of North Hempstead, New York - 2006 • Deputy Director of Strategic Planning, City of New York, 2004 • Director of Construction Services Bureau, City of Fort Lauderdale, 1999 • Planning Administrator, City of Fort Lauderdale, 1998 • Senior Planner, City of Fort Lauderdale, 1995 • VP Governmental Planning, Coral Ridge Properties, 1986 • Senior Planner, Coral Ridge Properties, 1984 • Planner, Mid-South Engineering, 1978 Education Florida Atlantic University Bachelor of Arts-Political Science Professional Certifications American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP), since 1993 Professional Affiliations American Planning Association Florida American Planning Association Honors and Awards Former Exemplary Employee – City of Fort Lauderdale, 2007 343343 2 Cecelia Ward, AICP JC Consulting Enterprises, Inc. 18081 SE Country Club Drive, #313 Tequesta, Florida 33469 (954) 815-4298 As of 3.22.25 Leadership Fort Lauderdale -1999, 2000, 2001 City of Fort Lauderdale – Commitment to Excellence in Business, 2003 Fort Lauderdale’s Finest,2003 Cecelia Hollar Appreciation Day – Fort Lauderdale Downtown Development Authority for contributions to Downtown Economic Development Planning, 2004 Certificate of Appreciation for Participation in Community Redevelopment Plan for Atlantic Beach CRA – City of Pompano Beach, 2000-2001 Community Service League of Women Voters, 1991 Coral Springs Economic Development Task Force, 1991 South Florida Regional Planning Council Strategic Regional Policy Plan, 1994 City of Pompano Beach Planning and Zoning Board, Alternate Member, 1991-2001 City of Pompano Beach –Beach Community Redevelopment Advisory Board Member, 2001 Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School Mentor Program, 1992-1993 Junior Achievement, Student Assistant, 1993 Leadership Fort Lauderdale, 1999-2004 Poultney Comes Together – 2018 - 2020 Background Ms. Ward is a recognized national and international urban planning and zoning professional with more than 30 years of planning and zoning expertise in the states of Florida, New York and Maine, and in Nova Scotia, Canada. Starting her career in the late 1970s Ms. Ward worked on the Town of Davie Comprehensive Plan, one of the first Comprehensive Plans ever developed in the State of Florida. She continued to develop her professional planning and zoning skills through the 1980s while working for Coral Ridge Properties, a then Fortune 500 land development company, where she worked in concert with the City of Parkland as Vice President of Government Planning to create land use and zoning regulations for corporate land holdings in Parkland. After more than nine years with Coral Ridge Properties, Ms. Ward was retained by the City of Fort Lauderdale, for the express purpose of updating and bringing in to compliance that city’s Comprehensive Plan, which had not been updated for more than 10 years. Ms. Ward was also tasked with updating Fort Lauderdale’s entire zoning code, which was more than 40 years old and internally inconsistent with the vision established for certain redevelopment areas, including the Fort Lauderdale Beach, the Downtown and Community Redevelopment Areas of the City. Meeting a 2 year deadline, Ms. Ward was successful in bringing both the City’s Comprehensive Plan into compliance, and in updating the City’s land development regulations to ensure consistency with the Plan. As a result, Ms. Ward was promoted to Director of Construction Services, which included supervising all activities and functions of the City of Fort Lauderdale Planning, Zoning, Building Departments, with responsibility of interpreting and implementing the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Unified Land Development Regulations. During this time, Ms. Ward oversaw the creation of a Downtown Master Plan ensuring that such plan provided for new urbanism and smart growth standards. Because of her leadership in this regard, Downtown Fort Lauderdale has developed into a vibrant and pedestrian friendly area, for which Ms. Ward was awarded Fort Lauderdale’s Finest by a local community grass- roots organization, and was honored by the City’s Downtown Development Authority, a not-for-profit authority, for her outstanding contribution to the renaissance of the downtown area of Fort Lauderdale. 344344 3 Cecelia Ward, AICP JC Consulting Enterprises, Inc. 18081 SE Country Club Drive, #313 Tequesta, Florida 33469 (954) 815-4298 As of 3.22.25 In 2006, she was subsequently awarded the “Former Exemplary Employee Award” by the City, in recognition of the positive impact she had in the land use and zoning changes that were implemented under her direction and leadership throughout the City of Fort Lauderdale. Ms Ward has also utilized her planning and zoning expertise in the State of New York where she has provided planning and zoning services for the City of New York, the Town of North Hempstead, and the City of Ogdensburg, including the preparation of various zoning regulations and vision plans for those entities. As Planning Commissioner, she managed the development of a Vision Plan for Port Washington, a large multi-neighborhood waterfront area located in North Hempstead. This project led to the adoption of a Vision Plan for the Port Washington area, and implementation of land development regulations intended to steer development to commercial parcels in need of revitalization. In 2006, Ms. Ward established JC Consulting Enterprises, Inc. Since then she has represented a large number of private developers and local government agencies on numerous land use, zoning and land development projects. One of her more significant long term projects was the management of the planning of an eco-oriented community envisioned for a 3,000 acre privately owned site, located in the State of Maine. She has also led a team of professionals in preparing vision plans for a 1,900 acre golf course community located in upstate New York and a Windmill project in Gulliver’s Cove, in Nova Scotia, Canada. In 2009, her firm was retained by the City of Pompano Beach Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA). Ms. Ward represented the Pompano Beach CRA on all planning and zoning related matters, including but not limited to evaluating Pompano Beach and Broward County land use plans and Pompano Beach zoning regulations for the express purpose of identifying land use and zoning provisions necessary to implement the City’s East and West Community Redevelopment Plans. This effort led to a rewrite of the City's Atlantic Boulevard Overlay regulations for the East CRA, and a Transit Oriented Corridor land use designation for a 269 acre area located in Downtown Pompano Beach CRA area, both of which Ms. Ward participated in. Since 2010, Ms. Ward's firm has been retained by the Town of Lauderdale-By-The-Sea, for which Ms. Ward has provided professional expertise on planning and zoning related matters of the Town on a case by case basis. One such project included an evaluation of the Town's Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations, wherein she provided professional recommendations and identified implementation measures necessary to update the Town's LDRs in terms of consistency and compatibility with the Town's Comprehensive Plan goals, objectives and policies. Ms. Ward is also recognized as a planning and zoning expert, and has testified in a numerous public hearings, and legal matters as an expert in comprehensive planning, land development regulations, community area planning, and zoning codes. Private Sector Expert Testimony/ Expert Witness Cases: o Capri Hotel, LLC - W Hotel Fort Lauderdale, Board Of Adjustment /Appeal of Zoning Interpretation - Expert Testimony Public Hearing Law Firms: • Shutts and Bowen Steven Tilbrook 345345 4 Cecelia Ward, AICP JC Consulting Enterprises, Inc. 18081 SE Country Club Drive, #313 Tequesta, Florida 33469 (954) 815-4298 As of 3.22.25 • Akerman Senterfitt William Spencer o Cardinal Gibbons High School, Fort Lauderdale, Ball Field Lighting - Expert Testimony Public Hearing Law Firms: • Shubin & Bass- John Shubin, Amy Huber • Lochrie & Chakas Robert Lochrie o Casa Medico, LLC - Special Exception /Thrift Store Pompano Beach - Expert Testimony Public Hearing No law firm involved • Consultatio Key Biscayne, LLC - Sonesta Beach Hotel Site Plan -Expert Testimony Public Hearings Law Firms: • Shubin & Bass- John Shubin Amy Huber • Akerman Senterfitt William Spencer • Fairfield Manor, Village of Bal Harbour - Neighborhood Group Repeal of Issuance of Permit for Bal Harbour Shoppes -Expert Testimony Public Hearing Law Firm • Akerman Senterfitt William Spencer • Grand Birch LLC, Grand Birch Condominium Fort Lauderdale -Site Plan Expert Testimony Public Hearings Law Firm: • Gunster Yoakley Don Hall 346346 5 Cecelia Ward, AICP JC Consulting Enterprises, Inc. 18081 SE Country Club Drive, #313 Tequesta, Florida 33469 (954) 815-4298 As of 3.22.25 Heidi Davis • Kinderhook NY - Private Residence - Historic Preservation Board - Approval of improvements to historic building - Expert Testimony Public Hearing No Law Firm Involved. • Related Group - Icon Las Olas Condominium, Fort Lauderdale-Site Plan Expert Witness Litigation for City of Fort Lauderdale Law Firm: • Gunster Yoakley Michael Marcil o Southern Development Services Inc., - Land Use Amendment/ Land Development Code Amendment Retail Use to allow for Dollar General store -Delray Beach - Expert Testimony Public Hearings Law Firm: • Siegel, Lipman, Dunay, Shepard & Miskel, LLP - Bonnie Miskel o Transacta Development LLC - Surfside Hotel - Site Plan Expert Testimony Public Hearing Law Firm: • Akerman Senterfitt William Spencer, Neisen Kasdin o Royal Atlantic LLC, Royal Atlantic Condominium Fort Lauderdale - Site Plan Expert Testimony Public Hearings Law Firm: • Gunster Yoakley Don Hall, 347347 6 Cecelia Ward, AICP JC Consulting Enterprises, Inc. 18081 SE Country Club Drive, #313 Tequesta, Florida 33469 (954) 815-4298 As of 3.22.25 Heidi Davis o Cortez Development - Fort Lauderdale - Site Plan Expert Testimony / Public Hearings / Litigation Law Firms • Poole, McKinley and Blosser Jim Blosser • Hopping Green and Sams Miquel Collazo • Ruden McClosky o The Sails Fort Lauderdale - Site Plan - Expert Testimony Public Hearings Law Firm: • Mastrianna and Christensen Ron Mastriana o Bayshore Development - Fort Lauderdale Site Plan -Expert Testimony Public Hearings Application Law Firm • Greenberg Traurig Debbie Orshefsky o First Presbyterian Church - Fort Lauderdale Site Plan Expert Testimony Public Hearings Law Firms • Lochrie and Chakas Robert Lochrie • Law Office of Hugh Chappell, Jr. Hugh Chapell o Largo Mar Hotel and Club Site Plan Expert Testimony Public Hearings Law Firm 348348 7 Cecelia Ward, AICP JC Consulting Enterprises, Inc. 18081 SE Country Club Drive, #313 Tequesta, Florida 33469 (954) 815-4298 As of 3.22.25 • Lochrie and Chakas Robert Lochrie o Vintro Fort Lauderdale Site Plan Expert Testimony Public Hearings Law Firm • Siegel, Lipman, Dunay, Shepard & Miskel, LLP Scott Bachman o West Second Street Associates - Oakland Park Site Plan Veteran Administration Building Expert Testimony Public Hearings Law Firm: • Mastrianna and Christensen Ron Mastriana o Casa Medico - Pompano Beach - Code change for Special Exception Use / B-3 Zoning to allow for Thrift Store - Expert Testimony Public Hearing No law firm involved. 349349 8 Cecelia Ward, AICP JC Consulting Enterprises, Inc. 18081 SE Country Club Drive, #313 Tequesta, Florida 33469 (954) 815-4298 As of 3.22.25 Summary of Public Sector Experience: City of Fort Lauderdale - Florida • Comprehensive Planning • Zoning and Land Development Regulations • Community Redevelopment Plans • Master Plans • Development Permit Application Reviews, including but not limited to Site Plan, Variances, Vacations, Plats • Interpretations of Land Use Plans, Code and City Ordinances • Represented the City on Land Use Litigation matters Town of Lauderdale-By-The-Sea, Florida • Comprehensive Planning • Zoning and Land Development Regulations • Other general planning and zoning consulting services City of Pompano Beach Community Redevelopment Agency - Florida • Comprehensive Planning • Zoning and Land Development Regulations • Nuisance Commercial Uses City of Sunrise Development Services Department - Florida • Comprehensive Planning • Zoning and Land Development Regulations • Development Agreements City of New York • Strategic Planning Town of North Hempstead – New York • Land Use Plans • Zoning and Land Development Regulations • Community Redevelopment Plans • Master Plans • Development Permit Application Reviews, including but not limited to Environmental Permit Applications, • Site Plan, Variances, Vacations, Plats, Historic Preservation • Interpretations of Land Use Plans, Code and City Ordinances • Management of Grants as Director of Department City of Ogdensburg – New York • Review of Waterfront Redevelopment Plan and Scope of Services for Request For Proposals Town of Poultney- Vermont • Economic Development Planning • Review Town Comprehensive Plan • Review Town Zoning Regulations 350350 9 Cecelia Ward, AICP JC Consulting Enterprises, Inc. 18081 SE Country Club Drive, #313 Tequesta, Florida 33469 (954) 815-4298 As of 3.22.25 Summary of Other Private Sector Experience: • Mid South Engineering o Worked on one of the first comprehensive plans developed in southeast Florida - Town of Davie • Coral Ridge Properties o Assisted in land use and zoning issues related to all land development activities for corporate land holdings in the City of Parkland o Assisted in the drafting of City of Parkland Parks and Recreation land use and zoning regulations • Siren Management Corp. - [Winter Harbor, ME; Trenton, ME; Loon Lake, NY; Gulliver's Cove, N.S.] o Land Use and Zoning Expertise for Private Land Owner with Properties located in Nova Scotia, Maine and New York State JC Consulting Projects: • NRNS IV Acquisition, LLC - [Pine Hollow- Parkland, Fl] Expert Witness Litigation for Defendant (Gunster Law- Fort Lauderdale) • Citizens for Responsible Development Inc v. City of Dania Beach and Dania Entertainment Center LLC - Expert Witness Litigation for Plaintiff (Conrad & Scherer Fort Lauderdale) • Zaveco vs. Woodmont Development Corp. -Expert Witness Litigation for Plaintiff (Conrad & Scherer Fort Lauderdale) • TS&B, LLC. Vs. City of Hallandale Beach - Expert Witness Litigation for Plaintiff (Gunster Law- Fort Lauderdale) • Realty Assoc. Funds IX LP vs. Town of Cutler Bay and GCF Investments Inc. - Shoppes of Cutler Bay - Expert Witness Litigation for Defendant (Gray Robinson – Miami) • Keystone, Florida Property Holding Corp. – Galleria Mall, - Fort Lauderdale, Proposed Planned Development - Rezoning and Site Plan • Town of Lauderdale-By-The-Sea, FL - General Planning and Zoning Services; Evaluation of Comprehensive Plan; Study of Annexed Area Zoning • City of Pompano Beach CRA – Zoning in progress issues – Nuisance Commercial Uses • City of Pembroke Pines – Wastewater Capacity Planning Analysis 351351 10 Cecelia Ward, AICP JC Consulting Enterprises, Inc. 18081 SE Country Club Drive, #313 Tequesta, Florida 33469 (954) 815-4298 As of 3.22.25 • Robert Black – Riverland Estates Plat – City of Fort Lauderdale – Plat Application • Broward Design Center – City of Fort Lauderdale - Planning review of Parking Related Issues • MB Development – Town of Surfside – Planning Analysis of Beach Concessions • Collins and 72nd Street Developers – City of Miami Beach – North Beach Area Study – Planning Analysis of Proposed Master Plan • Grande Bay Estates – Neighborhood Association – Wellington – Planning Analysis of Gate Issue • Seneca Industrial Development – City of Pembroke Park – Review of Site Plan application related to Seneca Town Center • PMG Riverfront – City of Fort Lauderdale – Review Historic Preservation Related Issues in conjunction with Site Plan application • Investments Limited LLC – City of Boca Raton - Expert Witness for Plaintiff related to redevelopment potential of property (Attorney’s Investments Limited LLC) • Granite Investments LLC – City of Aventura - Proposed Land Use and Land Development Code changes to permit mixed use development • Indian Creek Country Club – Indian Creek Village, FL – related to request for Dock Permit • Port Aventura Gross Holdings LLC – Aventura, FL - Land Use and Zoning text amendment and site plan for mixed use development • Alexan Fort Lauderdale - Site Plan Land Use and Zoning review for Hotel/Condo • DR Horton – Fort Lauderdale rezoning and site Plan for townhouse development • 8995 Collins – Surfside, FL- Site Plan Land Use and Zoning review for Hotel/Condo • RK Centers LLC – Comprehensive Plan and Zoning analysis in opposition to proposed development – expert witness – Sunny Isles, FL • 222 Lakeview LLC- RedSky Capital WPB Land Use /Zoning Litigation on behalf of Plaintiff (Nason Yeager Gerson, White I Lioce, PA – WPB) 352352 11 Cecelia Ward, AICP JC Consulting Enterprises, Inc. 18081 SE Country Club Drive, #313 Tequesta, Florida 33469 (954) 815-4298 As of 3.22.25 • Conrad Scherer – Comprehensive Plan and Zoning analysis in opposition to proposed AHF development – Fort Lauderdale, FL • TS&B, LLC- Impact of NE 1 Avenue Lane Reduction on Land Holdings – Hallandale, FL • Town of Poultney, Vermont- Economic Development Consultant and review of Land Use and Zoning regulations • Ori Lapidot – Land Use and Zoning Fort Lauderdale Properties (Crush Law) • City of Sunrise FL - Planning Consultant • West Shore LLC - Alachua County Land Use /Zoning – Litigation on behalf of Plaintiff (Akerman – Fort Lauderdale) • 4112 El Mar Drive – Single Family Conditional Use – Lauderdale-By-the-Sea (Crush Law) • City of Miami Beach – Land Use/Zoning Review of Permits issued for South of Fifth Properties • Flagler Village – Review of Proposed Development of One Stop Shop Property (Flagler Village Neighborhood Assoc.- Fort Lauderdale) • West Shore Point of Naples LLP – Land Use /Zoning Review of St. Matthews House CPUD application (Akerman PA) • KZ Copans LLC – Small -Scale Land Use Amendment – and Rezoning - City of Pompano Beach (Gunster, PA) • Hayes Street Properties – Zoning Issues (Angelo & Banta PA) • Davie – Billy Jack’s – Site Land Use and Zoning Issues (Angelo & Banta PA) • Ocean Park Residences and Hotel – Site Plan Level IV - Fort Lauderdale (Lochrie & Chakas PA) • Hillcrest By The Sea, Surfside, FL – Multifamily Residential Site Plan (Fort Partners/Shubin & Bass, PA) • Surf House, Surfside, FL – Site Plan Amendment (Fort Partners/Shubin & Bass, P.A.) • Aletto – Boca Raton, FL – Site Plan – (Save Downtown Boca Raton/Tucker Gibbs P.A. ) • Seaway, Surfside, FL – Review of Parking Regulations (Fort Partners) 353353 12 Cecelia Ward, AICP JC Consulting Enterprises, Inc. 18081 SE Country Club Drive, #313 Tequesta, Florida 33469 (954) 815-4298 As of 3.22.25 • Market Hall – Surfside, FL – Site Plan Amendment (Fort Partners/Shubin & Bass, PA) • Hancock 40 LLC – SW Ranches, FL Future Land Use Plan Amendment and Rezoning Applications (Crush Law, PA) • Bahama Village – Key West – Planning Expert Opinion regarding proposed Land Use and Rezoning Application – Michelle Cates Deal, PA • DAMAC – Site Plan Surfside, FL - East Oceanside Development LLC • DAMAC – Sales Center – City of Miami Beach • Delray Beach Market – Review Site Plan Issue with Rooftop Elevator – Conrad & Scherer LLP • Versailles Delray – Redevelopment of Golf Course- The Fountains of Palm Beach, FL – Tucker Gibbs, P.A. • Morrison Tennessee - Represent Residents in R-1 zoning – opposed to McNeilus Steel Rezoning • Snyder Park Pickleball Facility – Planning expert opinion for Rodstrom Law • First United Methodist Church of McMinnville Tennessee – Historic Preservation planning services. • Las Olas Ocean Site Plan – Crush Law, City of Fort Lauderdale • Paramount Theater Redevelopment – Palm Beach, FL - Sun and Surf Condominium Assoc. – John Eubanks, Esq. Sniffen & Spellman, P.A. • Palm Beach Synagogue Redevelopment – Palm Beach, FL - Sun and Surf Condominium Assoc. – John Eubanks, Esq. Sniffen & Spellman, P.A. • Westwood Redevelopment Plan – Orange County, FL – RHM Wynfield LLC (George Kousoulas – Zachary Parnas) • Irlo Redevelopment Plan– Osceola County – Lakeside Operating Partnership LP – (George Kousoulas – Zachary Parnas) • Quail Creek Golf Course – Variance Application – Collier County, FL [Quail Creek Residents-Coco Plum and Valewood ] 354354 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 355 Exhibit Z Attachment 8: Exhibit Z to AA 356 357 358 359 360 Exhibit Z-1 361361 362 363 364 Exhibit AA 365365 366 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 367 QUAIL CREEK COUNTRY CLUB TREE REMOVAL OVER TIME BARRIER TREES BETWEEN DRIVING RANGE AND CREEK HOLE #10 GOOGLE EARTH PRO VIEWS FROM 2003-2024 Attachment 9: Exhibit BB - Quail Creek Golf Course Tree Removal Over Time - Copy 2 368 2005 369 2008 370 2009 371 2014 372 2016 373 2/2017 374 9/2017 375 2019 376 2020 377 2021 378 2022 379 2023 380 March 2024 381 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 382 Exhibit CC Attachment 10: Exhibits CC to JJ 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 Exhibit DD 391391 "" This item has been digitally signed and sealed by License No. 30122 Ryan Schenker, PE, on ______________________. Printed copies of this document are not considered signed and sealed and the signature must be verified on any electronic copies. The Engineering Shedd, LLC This item has been digitally signed and sealed by License No. 30122 Ryan Schenker, PE, on ______________________. Printed copies of this document are not considered signed and sealed and the signature must be verified on any electronic copies. The Engineering Shedd, LLC 392 This item has been digitally signed and sealed by License No. 30122 Ryan Schenker, PE, on ______________________. Printed copies of this document are not considered signed and sealed and the signature must be verified on any electronic copies. The Engineering Shedd, LLC This item has been digitally signed and sealed by License No. 30122 Ryan Schenker, PE, on ______________________. Printed copies of this document are not considered signed and sealed and the signature must be verified on any electronic copies. The Engineering Shedd, LLC 393 Exhibit EE 394394 395 396 397 Exhibit FF 398398 399 400 Exhibit GG 401401 402 403 404 Exhibit HH 405405 406 407 408 Exhibit II 409409 410 411 412 Exhibit JJ 413413 414 415 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 416 6. New Business c.PL20260002638 – Recreational Vehicle Parking (Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances) – LDCA 417 1 G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2026\05-06\Materials\PL20260002638 Recreational Vehicles - LDCA (05- 06-2026) .docx CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES AMENDMENT PETITION PL20260002638 SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT This amendment proposes to update the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances (COL),Section 130-96,Limitation on the parking, storage or use of recreational vehicles,to allow recreational vehicles to be parked in a driveway of a residence within a Planned Unit Development if approved by the Homeowner’s Association (HOA). ORIGIN Board of County Commissioners (Board) HEARING DATES COL SECTION TO BE AMENDED Board TBD 130-96 Limitations on the parking, storage or use of recreational vehiclesCCPCTBD DSAC 05/06/2026 DSAC-LDR 04/21/2026 ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS DSAC-LDR Approval with recommendations DSAC TBD CCPC TBD BACKGROUND On January 13, 2026, and February 10, 2026, the Board discussed the potential for changing the rules concerning the parking of recreational vehicles. Specifically, the Board considered whether recreation vehicles should be permitted to park in a driveway. The Board directed staff to review the issue and prepare a proposed amendment that would allow recreational vehicles to be parked in the front driveway of a single -family dwelling located within a PUD if approved by the applicable HOA. The Code of Laws and Ordinances defines “recreational vehicles”as the following: “Recreational vehicle: A vehicular-type portable structure without permanent foundation which can be towed, hauled or driven and primarily designed as temporary living accommodation when engaged in recreation, camping or travel use. This type of vehicle includes, but not limited to, travel trailers, truck campers, camping trailers, self-propelled motorhomes, boats, jet skis and trailers used for transporting the vehicles.” This amendment proposes to allow recreational vehicles to be parked within the front yard and/or side yard driveway within an approved PUD contingent upon receiving homeowner’s association or community association approval. DSAC-LDR Subcommittee recommendations: On April 21, 2026,the Subcommittee recommended approval of the amendment to the Code of Laws and Ordinances with the condition that staff decrease the length of the text in the amendment by removing the term “association.” --FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS There areno anticipateed fiscal or operational impacts associated with this amendment. GMP CONSISTENCY The proposed LDC amendment has been reviewed by Comprehensive Planning Staff and may be deemed consistent with the GMP. EXHIBITS:A) None 418 DRAFT 2 G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2026\05-06\Materials\PL20260002638 Recreational Vehicles - LDCA (05-06-2026) .docx Amend the LDC as follows: 1 130-96 – Limitation on the parking, storage or use of recreational vehicles2 3 (a)No Recreational Vehicle shall be used for living, sleeping, or housekeeping purposes4 when parked or stored on a lot in a Residential District, or any location not approved5 for such use.6 7 (b)In Residential Districts permitting single-family homes or mobile homes, a8 Recreational Vehicle may be parked or stored only in a rear yard, or in a completely9 enclosed building, or in a carport, or on davits or cradles adjacent to waterways on10 residentially zoned property; provided, however, that such Recreational Vehicle may11 be parked anywhere on residential premises, other than on county rights-of-way or12 right-of-way easements for a period not to exceed six hours within a time period of13 seven days for loading and unloading, and/or cleaning prior to or after a trip. For the14 purpose of this section, the rear yard for a corner lot shall be considered to be that15 portion of the lot opposite the street with the least frontage. For through lots, the rear16 yard shall be considered to be that portion of the lot lying between the rear elevation17 (by design) of the residence and the street. Recreational vehicles may be parked18 without restriction on a driveway located within a front yard and/or side yard of a19 residential premise that is located within a Planned Unit Development, provided an20 applicable homeowner’s or community association approves such parking.21 22 (c)The following exceptions may be granted to subsection (b) by the County Manager or23 his designee:24 25 1.Recreational Vehicles may be parked only on a driveway located within the front26 yard and/or on a driveway located within the side yard of a single-family or mobile27 home residence other than on County rights-of-way or right-of-way easements for28 a period not to exceed 48 hours within any given 7-day time period so long as a29 permit is obtained from the Collier County Code Enforcement Department. Said30 permit must be affixed to the Recreational Vehicle in such a way that the permit is31 visible from the street. Such permits shall be available on-line online at the Collier32 County Code Enforcement Department Website.33 34 2.Recreational Vehicles may be parked upon the premises of the resident for a35 period not exceeding seven days for the purpose of repairing and/or cleaning prior36 to or after a trip. A temporary use permit must be obtained from the Collier County37 Code Enforcement Department to authorize this activity. Said permit must be38 affixed to the Recreational Vehicle in such a way that the permit is visible from the39 street. No more than two consecutive permits may be issued and the maximum40 number of permits issued during one calendar year shall be restricted to four.41 42 3.Nonresident: Such car, trailer, bus or motorhome, when used for transportation of43 visitors to this county to visit friends or members of the visitor's family residing in44 this county may be parked upon the premises of the visited family for a period not45 exceeding seven days. A temporary use permit must be obtained from the Collier46 County Code Enforcement Department to authorize this activity. Said permit must47 be affixed to the Recreational Vehicle in such a way that the permit is visible from48 the street. This does not allow for living, sleeping, or housekeeping purposes. No49 419 DRAFT 3 G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2026\05-06\Materials\PL20260002638 Recreational Vehicles - LDCA (05-06-2026) .docx more than two consecutive permits may be issued and the maximum number of 1 permits issued during one calendar year shall be restricted to four. 2 3 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 4 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 5 420 6. New Business d. PL20260003715 – Facilities with Fuel Pumps Waiver of Separation – LDCA 421 1 G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2026\05-06\Materials\PL20260003715 Facilities With Fuel Pumps - LDCA (05-06-2026).docx LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT PETITION PL20260003715 SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT To eliminate the waiver of distance separation requirements between Facilities With Fuel Pumps. LDC amendments are reviewed by the Board of County Commissioners (Board), Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), Development Services Advisory Committee (DSAC), and the Land Development Review Subcommittee of the DSAC (DSAC-LDR). ORIGIN Board of County Commissioners (Board) HEARING DATES LDC SECTION TO BE AMENDED Board TBD 5.05.05 Facilities With Fuel Pumps CCPC TBD DSAC 05/06/2026 DSAC-LDR 04/21/2026 ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS DSAC-LDR Approval DSAC TBD CCPC TBD BACKGROUND On October 14, 2025, by Resolution No. 25-116, the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)approved the Costco's petition for Hacienda Lakes Mixed-Use PUD to reduce the required separation distance between fueling facilities to 132’, limit the number of fueling stations to 12 fueling pumps (24 positions) and stipulate additional fuel pumps shall require the Board’s conditional use approval. After the decision, the BZA directed staff to evaluate the distance spatial requirement, public concerns,and bring back for discussion the process for waiving a distance separation between gasoline stations. The request for waiver to the separation of distance requirements was first established on June 24, 1998, by Ordinance No. 98-63.It had been for a specific ingress/egress location at Pine Ridge Road, due to the volume of traffic from several gas stations being developed along Pine Ridge Road and near I-75 Interchange. The minimum distance separation critiera at that time evolved from the industry’s stand-a- lone gas and service stations that are clustered to maximize visibility, capture high traffic flow and ensure easy access for motorists rather than be spread out. Since that time, the BZA and Hearing Examiner (HEX)have reviewed 11 distance separation waiver requests (one withdrawn) and approved 10 waivers to the minimum 500-foot separation of distance requirement (six by BZA and four by HEX) ranging from 117’ up to 420’. See Exhibit A. Its notable the requests had occurred at four-lane and six- lane intersections. Only two out of the 11 petitions had occurred on a two-lane collector roadway and eight of the ten requests were approved within designated Activity Centers. Also,staff researched other Florida counties and municipalities land development codes and found that very few require a separation of distance between other gas stations or facilities with fuel pumps and only nine communities require a separation of distance from 150’ and up to 1,000’.See Exhibit A. It’s notable there are 67 counties and 411 municipalities (478 local jurisdictions)within the State of Florida, which only seven have a distance of separation waiver requirement or 1.5 percent. On March 10, 2026, agenda item 11.D, the Board discussed the following three options related to gas station waivers for a distance separation requirement: 422 2 G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2026\05-06\Materials\PL20260003715 Facilities With Fuel Pumps - LDCA (05-06-2026).docx A) Eliminate the waiver requirement in its entirety, B)Eliminate the wavier requirement within designated activity centers as most of them have physical dividers that address safety and ingress/egress concerns with the overall transportation system, and they provide for multiple entrances with spacing criteria with the quadrants of commercial/mixed use development, and C)Modify the separation requirements and evaluate the standards and site design requirements which may include, but are not limited to the following: •Reduce separation distance to 250 feet. •Cap and limit the number of fueling stations at major mixed-use Activity Centers. •Require and prioritize a written conceptual traffic study analysis to justify interconnectivity, safe and efficient mobility for the public’s benefit, instead of a market study analysis. •Expand the current list of factors to waiver part or all the separation requirements. Staff’s analysis and re-evaluation were presented in the Executive Summary to the Board. See Exhibit B.Members of the Board recognized, that there is no Florida Statute prohibiting facilities with fuel pumps within 500 feet of each other, only 1.5% of statewide jurisdictions have a distance waiver, the waiver request is outdated, and during the site development plan approval and transportation operational analysis process (access management policies) there is a adequate process for the review and analysis to address saftey concerns and ingress/egress issues for facilities with fuel pumps. This proposed LDC amendment will eliminate LDC subsection 5.05.05 B.2.in its entirety and retain LDC subsection 5.05.05 B.1 site design requirements. FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS There are no anticipated fiscal or operational impacts associated with this amendment. GMP CONSISTENCY The proposed LDC amendment has been reviewed by Comprehensice Planning staff and may be deemed consisten with the GMP. EXHIBITS:A) Distance Separation Waiver Decisions/Other Florida Communities Separation Distances; and B) Executive Summary 423 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 3 G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2026\05-06\Materials\PL20260003715 Facilities With Fuel Pumps - LDCA (05-06-2026).docx Amend the LDC as follows: 5.05.05 Facilities with Fuel Pumps 1 2 A.The purpose of this section is to ensure that facilities with fuel pumps do not adversely3 impact adjacent land uses, especially residential land uses. The high levels of traffic,4 glare, and intensity of use associated with facilities with fuel pumps, particularly those5 open 24 hours, may be incompatible with surrounding uses, especially residential uses.6 Therefore, in the interest of protecting the health, safety, and general welfare of the7 public, the following regulations shall apply to the location, layout, drainage, operation,8 landscaping, parking, and permitted sales and service activities of facilities with fuel9 pumps.10 11 B.Site design requirements.12 13 1.Table of site design requirements:14 15 Minimum dimensions: Site Standards Minimum lot area (sq. ft.) 30,000 Minimum lot width (ft.) 150 Minimum lot depth (ft.) 180 Separation from adjacent facilities with fuel pumps (ft.) (based on distance between nearest points) 500 Minimum setbacks, all structures: Front yard (ft.) Side yard (ft.) Rear yard (ft.) 50 40 40 16 2.Waiver of separation requirements.17 18 a.The BZA may, by resolution, grant a waiver of part or all of the minimum19 separation requirements set forth herein if it is demonstrated by the 20 applicant and determined by the BZA that the site proposed for 21 development of a facility with fuel pumps is separated from another facility 22 with fuel pumps by natural or man-made boundaries, structures, or other 23 features which offset or limit the necessity for such minimum distance 24 requirements. The BZA's decision to waive part or all of the distance 25 requirements shall be based upon the following factors: 26 27 i.Whether the nature and type of natural or man-made boundary,28 structure, or other feature lying between the proposed 29 establishment and an existing facility with fuel pumps is 30 determined by the BZA to lessen the impact of the proposed 31 facility with fuel pumps. Such boundary, structure, or other feature 32 may include, but is not limited to, lakes, marshes, nondevelopable 33 wetlands, designated preserve areas, canals, and a minimum of a 34 4-lane arterial or collector right-of-way.35 36 424 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 4 G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2026\05-06\Materials\PL20260003715 Facilities With Fuel Pumps - LDCA (05-06-2026).docx ii. Whether the facility with fuel pumps is only engaged in the 1 servicing of automobiles during regular, daytime business hours, 2 or, if in addition to or in lieu of servicing, the facility with fuel 3 pumps sells food, gasoline, and other convenience items during 4 daytime, nighttime, or on a 24 hour basis. 5 6 iii.Whether the facility with fuel pumps is located within a shopping7 center primarily accessed by a driveway, or if it fronts on and is 8 accessed directly from a platted road right-of-way. 9 10 iv.Whether the granting of the distance waiver will have an adverse11 impact on adjacent land uses, especially residential land uses. 12 13 14 b.The Administrative Code shall establish the submittal requirements for a15 facility with fuel pumps waiver request. The request for a facility with fuel 16 pumps waiver shall be based on the submittal of the required application, 17 a site plan, and a written market study analysis which justifies a need for 18 the additional the facility with fuel pumps in the desired location. 19 20 c.Additional conditions. The BZA shall have the right to add additional21 conditions or requirements to its approval of a distance waiver request in 22 order to insure compatibility of the facility with fuel pumps with the 23 24 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 25 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 26 425 Exhibit A – Distance Separation Waiver Decisions / Other Florida Communities Separation Distances 5 G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2026\05-06\Materials\PL20260003715 Facilities With Fuel Pumps - LDCA (05-06-2026).docx ASW- BZA Resolutions and HEX Decisions Distance Separation Table BZA Resolution No. HEX Decision No. Fuel Facility- Location Distance Separation Relief in feet. (Remaining Distance) 1998-499 At U.S.41 and Royal Palm Terrace. 400 (100) 2000-61 Sam's Club and ? at Immokalee and Airport Rd. 182 (318) 2000-277 7-Eleven and Capri Commerce Center.300 (200) 2016-01 7-Eleven and RaceTrac at U.S.41 between Fredrick and Palm Streets.Varies 2017-19 7-E;even and Naples South Plaza at U.S.41 and Rattlesnake Hammock Rd.191.77 (308.23) 2018-03 RaceTrac and an Existing Facility at Shadowlawn Dr. and U.S. 41. 185 (315) 2021-13 New ASS with convenience store and car wash and RaceTrac at NE corner of Collier Blvd. and Rattlesnake Rd. 117 (363) 2021-116 7-Eleven and Handy Convenience Store at North 9th St. and Mainstreet- Immokalee. 420 (80) 2021-227 7-Eleven and Estates Shopping Center Golden Gate Blvd. and Wilson Blvd.370 (130) 2025-216 7-Eleven and Costco at Rattlesnake Hammock Rd. and Collier Blvd.132 (368) Other Florida Communities Community Fuel Facilities Separation Distance (feet) County Collier 500’ Arcadia 750’ except at the intersection of any two designated primary state highways, or lots on opposite sides of four-lane streets where there is a median for control of traffic constituting, for all practical purposes, two separate one-way streets. 250’ from places of public assemblage, occupied for a church, hospital, elementary or high school, public library, theater, auditorium stadium arena assembly hall or other similar public or semipublic place where large numbers of people congregate. 426 Exhibit A – Distance Separation Waiver Decisions / Other Florida Communities Separation Distances 6 G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2026\05-06\Materials\PL20260003715 Facilities With Fuel Pumps - LDCA (05-06-2026).docx Highlands 250’ from any lot used or to be used for church, playground, playfield, park, hospital, elementary or high school, public library, theater, auditorium, stadium, arena, assembly hall or other similar public or semi-public place where large numbers of people congregate schools. Palm Beach Intersection Criteria: applicable uses shall be limited to within 1,000’ of any intersection, measured from intersection centerlines of each street to nearest exterior wall or outdoor dining area and a maximum of two at an intersection. Separation Criteria: A use shall meet the following separation criteria of any other same and existing or approved use, measured by straight line between nearest point of exterior wall or outdoor dining area of proposed use: 1,000’. Wakulla 150’ from residential property, school, public playground, churches, hospital, public library, or institution for children or dependents. City Estero 500’ separation unless a deviation or variation is granted by Village Council. Jupiter 400’ from place of worship, hospital, or school. 750’ from other fueling station. Separation between street driveway or intersection: 125’ (center line to center line) on 80’ or smaller collector road ROW or 245’ on 100’ or greater arterial road ROW. Lauderhill 2,000’; does not apply if 2 or more stations are located on different corners of an intersection of 2 or more streets. Use is prohibited in the General Commercial zoning district if the land use is located on property that abuts property zoned RS-4, RS-5, RM-5, RM-8, RM-10, RM-18, and RM-22 zoning districts or that abuts a water body zoned PO district and if the land use is located on property with a depth equal to or less than three hundred fifty (350) feet. This land use also is prohibited in the General Commercial zoning district if the land use is located on property where the front or rear property lines are three hundred fifty (350) feet or less from property zoned RS-4, RS-5, RM-5, RM-8, RM-10, RM-18, or RM-22 districts. Margate 1,000’ and 100’ from residential Palm Springs 250’ from intersection-arterial or collector and a parcel occupied by a church, public or private school, daycare, hospital, governmentally owned or operated building, nursing home or assisted living facility, theater, auditorium, stadium area, place of assembly, and/or a public play field or 1,000 in village. 427 Exhibit B – Executive Summary 7 G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2026\05-06\Materials\PL20260003715 Facilities With Fuel Pumps - LDCA (05-06-2026).docx 428 Exhibit B – Executive Summary 8 G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2026\05-06\Materials\PL20260003715 Facilities With Fuel Pumps - LDCA (05-06-2026).docx 429 Exhibit B – Executive Summary 9 G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2026\05-06\Materials\PL20260003715 Facilities With Fuel Pumps - LDCA (05-06-2026).docx 1 430